James C. Goodale

In the last two months two judges have hit the jackpot.  They walked away with $6 million in damages in libel cases.  Former placekicker for the National Football League's Chicago Bears, Robert R. Thomas, now Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, got the most: $4 million.  Ernest B. Murphy, a Massachusetts Superior Court trial judge, got $2 million.[1]

Judge Thomas originally won $7 million.  On April 7, the trial court reduced it to $4 million.  On May 7, the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld the $2 million verdict in favor of Judge Murphy.

Suits by judges against the press are on the rise.  According to the Media Law Resource Center, there were only four in 1988 and 13 in 2001.  In 2005 there were 25.

Judges may have found a weak spot in libel law.  When judges judge judges there is a built-in conflict of interest.  There is a tendency to rally around to protect the brethren.

This is best illustrated in the case of Judge Bob Thomas.  He was attacked by op-ed columnist Bill Page of the Kane County Chronicle.  Mr. Page said Judge Thomas was out to get the Kane County prosecutor Meg Gorecki.

Ms. Gorecki had won the election for prosecutor, upsetting the incumbent Republican candidate.  Judge Thomas, also a Republican, won a statewide election to sit on the Illinois Supreme Court.

Before Ms. Gorecki was elected she made a phone call implying that campaign contributions could result in political favors (jobs).  The local disciplinary board suspended her from practicing law for two months subject to review by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Ms. Gorecki could not be a county prosecutor if her license was suspended.  That meant local Republicans could replace her.

Bill Page wrote: a number of “sources” said Judge Thomas could not be "impartial" in deciding Ms. Gorecki's case.  He was pushing for more severe sanctions including disbarment, said Mr. Page.

The Illinois Supreme Court doubled Ms. Gorecki's suspension to four months.

Mr. Page then wrote that a four-month suspension, as distinct from a one-year suspension Judge Thomas originally suggested, was "the result of a little political shimmy shammy.  In return for some high-profile Gorecki supporters endorsing Bob Spence, a judicial candidate favored by Judge Thomas, he agreed to the four-month suspension."

All the members of the Illinois Supreme Court, who decided the Gorecki case, testified at the trial.  They would not say how they made the decision about Ms. Gorecki.  That was private, or as lawyers say, "privileged."

When that claim of privilege was appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, the judges refused to hear it.  They had a conflict of interest.  They couldn't decide whether their claim of privilege at the libel trial was correct.

Presumably, when Mr. Page's case is appealed, they will refuse to hear it on the same grounds.  This may block his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Appeals to that Court, other than from state supreme courts, are generally not permitted.

An op-ed columnist such as Bill Page should be virtually immune from libel cases.  Generally, you can't sue for opinions you don't like.

Mr. Page's columns had the word "opinion" at the top of them.  The Court permitted, however, lawyers for Judge Thomas to excise "opinion" when they showed the columns to the jury.

David Wedge, a Boston Herald reporter, suffered the same fate as Bill Page.  He wrote that Judge Ernest Murphy had said of a rape victim "[she] can' t go through life as a victim.  She's 14.  She got raped.  Tell her to get over it."

In fact, Mr. Wedge's sources said "[s]he's 14, she got raped, she's got to get on with her life and get over it" or substantially the same thing he wrote, it would seem.  Mr. Wedge's sources for the statement were two prosecutors who thought the Judge was soft on crime.  A national furor over the statement broke. 

Mr. Wedge thereafter called a third prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney David Crowley, to confirm the statement.  Mr. Crowley, present at the hearing, confirmed the statement.   

Mr. Wedge then went on "The O'Reilly Factor" (hosted by Bill O'Reilly and called the "most-watched program on cable news" by FOXNews.com) and repeated the statement, saying he had it from three sources.

At the trial, Mr. Wedge appeared shoddy.  He had thrown out his notebook with the offending quote, couldn't remember the timing of his conversation with Mr. Crowley, so forth and so on.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court was upset at Mr. Wedge's practices.  It criticized him for being a tool for prosecutors who did not like Judge Murphy.  It criticized Mr. Wedge's inconsistent memory and for throwing his notebook away.

The court's decision is, nonetheless, somewhat surprising.  Generally, the law is that if a reporter has sources for an offending statement and does not doubt them, he cannot successfully be sued.

This is the added protection the famous Sullivan v. The New York Times case gave reporters.  Before that case, reporters could not rely on sources as they can now.

In the real world, all reporters can do is rely on what others tell them.  If sources contradict each other that's a red light.  Reporters cannot run red lights and have the extra protection Sullivan grants.

While Mr. Wedge was shown to be a sloppy reporter, he ran no red lights.

And the same applies to Mr. Page.  He said he had good sources for his columns.  There is nothing in the case to show he knew what he was writing was false or that he had any doubt what he was writing was not true.  He was writing opinion pieces.

It would be the better part of valor for judges not to bring these cases.  Once they are brought, they may find themselves in the comic opera posture of the Illinois Supreme Court.

Because of the conflict inherent in judging their brethren, the hurdles for success should be higher, not lower, than they are for other public officials.  If the volume of these libel suits continue, the Supreme court may have to step in to make this clear.