Pre-Action Protocol For Defamation
Adrian J Cotterill, Editor-in-Chief
My vacation on Reggie’s Temptress around the islands of Madeira now seems a distant memory so I may have been better served skirt chasing in my Porsche on the Cote d’Azur.
We’ve received lots of support on our 25th August post ‘Not For Publication’ so thanks to all who wrote in and rang the office.
What amazes us is how the legal profession figure you can drop everything and answer them instantly. We had another solicitor’s letter today (I promise you the next one we get we will publish) which had the arrogance to think that we were referring to them in our last post.
Today’s missive said “On the same day that we sent our letter to you by email, you posted a comment on your Daily Dooh website which referred to ‘solicitor’s letters being received from individuals in the industry who really should know better.’ We take this to be a reference to our letter“.
Let me you tell you Mr. Legal Eagle (1) it’s DailyDOOH not ‘Daily Dooh’, (2) it’s a ‘post’ not a comment and (3) you can take it as a “reference to your letter” as much as you like but don’t think you are the only ones who like trying to suit the DailyDOOH.
We will answer all of our business correspondence when we can be bothered to get round to it.
September 2nd, 2011 at 17:10 @757
These are the sorts of posts that I need to be able to ‘like’! 😀
September 2nd, 2011 at 17:34 @773
Feathers were ruffled by your opinions: mission accomplished. Readers engaged.
A solicitor seems self-important: how unusual. Readers amused.
You are angry, the saga continues. Readers await.
You could always choose to glad hand everyone and take all PR claims as truth and beauty. I suspect readers would be bored.
September 2nd, 2011 at 18:24 @808
The only net beneficiaries in all of this are m’ learned colleagues. Arbitration is better than confrontation. Let it rest Adrian. Move on and don’t dignify your organ with online responses!
September 5th, 2011 at 16:02 @710
“…you posted a comment on your Daily Dooh website which referred to ‘solicitor’s letters being received from individuals in the industry who really should know better.’ We take this to be a reference to our letter“.
So – whilst they may or may not be the party in question – their solicitor is willing concede that their client (whoever they may be) should know better.
Which is rather like saying “I understand that the parties my firm is acting for are acting like asses, but they’re paying our bills so G&T’s all round.”
I had no idea that the Lionel Hutz character in The Simpsons was based on real people.