Who were the lawyers in the libel action?

by **PeterMac** 05.01.13 14:45

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Drug cheat Lance Armstrong FINALLY 'considering publicly admitting his doping guilt' and that his seven Tour de France titles were a fraud

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The Sunday Times paid Armstrong 300,000 pounds (now about $485,000) in 2006 to settle a case after it reprinted claims from a book that he took performance-enhancing drugs. The paper said in an article Sunday that it has issued legal papers against Armstrong.

"It is clear that the proceedings were baseless and fraudulent," the paper said in a letter to Armstrong's lawyers. "Your representations that you had never taken performance enhancing drugs were deliberately false."

Who represented him ? Clearly someone so vicious that even the Sunday Times decided not to go the whole way.

by aiyoyo 05.01.13 19:34

PeterMac wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Drug cheat Lance Armstrong FINALLY 'considering publicly admitting his doping guilt' and that his seven Tour de France titles were a fraud

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The Sunday Times paid Armstrong 300,000 pounds (now about $485,000) in 2006 to settle a case after it reprinted claims from a book that he took performance-enhancing drugs. The paper said in an article Sunday that it has issued legal papers against Armstrong.

"It is clear that the proceedings were baseless and fraudulent," the paper said in a letter to Armstrong's lawyers. "Your representations that you had never taken performance enhancing drugs were deliberately false."

Who represented him ? Clearly someone so vicious that even the Sunday Times decided not to go the whole way.

Someone with a stinking reputation and as vicious as CR no doubt.
And look what happened?
If only the Paper can issue legal papers against this vicious law firm as well....?

by Inspectorfrost 06.01.13 17:40

Armstrong denied the claims. He and his lawyers filed lawsuits in various countries against the book's authors and the publisher Editions de la Martiniere, as well as against newspaper The Sunday Times which referenced the book, and the publishers of magazine "L'Express" which printed excerpts.[8][9] His UK lawyers also told "every UK paper and broadcaster" to not re-state what was in the book.[6] Armstrong also sued Emma O'Reilly [7][10]
Armstrongs lawyers in France included Donald Manasse and Christian Charrière-Bournazel.[8][9] In the UK he retained the Schillings firm, where [6] Gideon Benaim and Matthew Himsworth[11] worked on his libel cases.[12]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Ribisl 06.01.13 17:55

Tim Herman has been named as his longtime lawyer in NYT.

by roy rovers 06.01.13 18:19

Hardly matters who his lawyers were / are. What matters is the principle that he may have to repay the libel damages. What goes around comes around - not just for Lance Armstrong.

by **PeterMac** 06.01.13 23:16

roy rovers wrote:Hardly matters who his lawyers were / are. What matters is the principle that he may have to repay the libel damages. What goes around comes around - not just for Lance Armstrong.

I think it does matter.
Lawyers surely have a duty to put "facts" before a court, not merely the ramblings of a drugged up and possibly confused money grubber.
If professional lawyers do not look into the details of a case they are about to present, then they are surely negligent.

by roy rovers 06.01.13 23:19

PeterMac wrote:
roy rovers wrote:Hardly matters who his lawyers were / are. What matters is the principle that he may have to repay the libel damages. What goes around comes around - not just for Lance Armstrong.
I think it does matter.
Lawyers surely have a duty to put "facts" before a court, not merely the ramblings of a drugged up and possibly confused money grubber.
If professional lawyers do not look into the details of a case they are about to present, then they are surely negligent.

Armstrong told his lawyers he didn't do drugs and they presented his case to the court. Not up to them to investigate - just ask him did you or didn't you?

by Guest 06.01.13 23:37

roy rovers wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
roy rovers wrote:Hardly matters who his lawyers were / are. What matters is the principle that he may have to repay the libel damages. What goes around comes around - not just for Lance Armstrong.
I think it does matter.
Lawyers surely have a duty to put "facts" before a court, not merely the ramblings of a drugged up and possibly confused money grubber.
If professional lawyers do not look into the details of a case they are about to present, then they are surely negligent.

Armstrong told his lawyers he didn't do drugs and they presented his case to the court. Not up to them to investigate - just ask him did you or didn't you?

***
If I understand correctly, most lawyers do NOT ask that question.

by aiyoyo 07.01.13 10:28

Châtelaine wrote:
roy rovers wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
roy rovers wrote:Hardly matters who his lawyers were / are. What matters is the principle that he may have to repay the libel damages. What goes around comes around - not just for Lance Armstrong.
I think it does matter.
Lawyers surely have a duty to put "facts" before a court, not merely the ramblings of a drugged up and possibly confused money grubber.
If professional lawyers do not look into the details of a case they are about to present, then they are surely negligent.

Armstrong told his lawyers he didn't do drugs and they presented his case to the court. Not up to them to investigate - just ask him did you or didn't you?
***
If I understand correctly, most lawyers do NOT ask that question.

Quite correct, to avoid complication for themselves. Lawyers are more concerned with making money than their conscience.

In the case of the Mccanns, CR didn't have to ask - they knew, how could they not!
The mccanns were official suspects yet to be exonerated. Plus CR have been reading blogs and forums and knew all about the dogs, evidence, released files, and all the other circumstantial evidence.
There is no question that the more dodgy the client the better for CR to milk them since their dodgy clients use them hoping to salvage their dodgy reputation.
I suspect the mccanns may not be the only ones instructing CR. The secret paymaster must surely want to be updated and have a say over how his money is spent.

by roy rovers 07.01.13 12:14

aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
roy rovers wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
roy rovers wrote:Hardly matters who his lawyers were / are. What matters is the principle that he may have to repay the libel damages. What goes around comes around - not just for Lance Armstrong.
I think it does matter.
Lawyers surely have a duty to put "facts" before a court, not merely the ramblings of a drugged up and possibly confused money grubber.
If professional lawyers do not look into the details of a case they are about to present, then they are surely negligent.

Armstrong told his lawyers he didn't do drugs and they presented his case to the court. Not up to them to investigate - just ask him did you or didn't you?
***
If I understand correctly, most lawyers do NOT ask that question.

Quite correct, to avoid complication for themselves. Lawyers are more concerned with making money than their conscience.

In the case of the Mccanns, CR didn't have to ask - they knew, how could they not!
The mccanns were official suspects yet to be exonerated. Plus CR have been reading blogs and forums and knew all about the dogs, evidence, released files, and all the other circumstantial evidence.
There is no question that the more dodgy the client the better for CR to milk them since their dodgy clients use them hoping to salvage their dodgy reputation.
I suspect the mccanns may not be the only ones instructing CR. The secret paymaster must surely want to be updated and have a say over how his money is spent.

Fair enough. My point is there is no point in bashing the lawyers in the Lance Armstrong or MM cases. They are instructed by their clients and on to a nice little earner.