Barbara Shea v. Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee
December 06, 2008
Is the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee under a legal duty to remove truthful but damaging information about a lawyer from its website?
That's the situation in which Greenwich attorney Barbara Shea finds herself, according to a recent article from The Connecticut Law Tribune. (H/T to Susan Cartier Liebel at Build a Solo Practice.) Shea, an elder law attorney who also handles divorces, was the subject of several disciplinary actions between 1997 and 2002 and received three reprimands and a four-month suspension. Shea has served her time, but the records remain available online and continue to damage her business. Now, Shea is fighting back; she's filed a federal lawsuit against the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee alleging violations of free speech rights, invasion of privacy, unfair trade practices and tortious interference with contract.
There's more commentary at Legal Blog Watch. I downloaded the complaint from PACER. I started to read it, to try to understand the plaintiff's theory of the case. Let's just say.... Well, at the risk of being sued, perhaps it's best I just let you read the complaint yourself. You may download it here.
Among other things, Ms. Shea claims that the Statewide Grievance Committee violated her Fourth Amendment rights:
Unreasonable Search and Seizure; Invasion of Privacy; Free Speech
Each of these sections are alleged to apply to the matter at hand in that: (1) allowing the Search engines to search and seize plaintiffs’ information is unreasonable in that it severely limits her ability to earn a living
The Committee also violated her First Amendment rights:
Free Speech Violations
The SGC dominates the supply of information on attorneys. Attorneys, like Attorney Shea, have no recourse to defend themselves from the dissemination of their personal and professional information to the world, uncensored and indiscriminately, for the remainder of their life and beyond. By choosing the Internet to republish their information, the SGC is in violation of the plaintiffs’ rights to free speech as there is no way that she can personally eradicate, correct, or defend against the published information through the exercise of her free speech right.
Fortunately for Ms. Shea, I will not violate her First Amendment rights. Comments are open; so Ms. Shea is welcome to speak her mind by leaving a comment.