First Amendment
Ex-Wife Can’t Talk About Divorce to Media—Ever, Conn. Court Rules
Posted Jun 24, 2009 4:54 AM CST
By Molly McDonough
The ex-wife of a wealthy skin doctor can't talk about her divorce with the media—ever, Connecticut's Supreme Court has ruled.
The ruling establishes that private waivers of First Amendment free speech rights are "presumptively enforceable," the Connecticut Law Tribune reports.
Still, the state's high court said such decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis and should consider the abilities of the individual waiving rights.
The ruling enforces a confidentiality agreement signed by Madeleine Perricone, the wife of multimillionaire skin doctor Nicholas V. Perricone, who agreed not to talk about her divorce in the early stages of its bitter and contentious filing, the Associated Press reports.
Nicholas Perricone is a well-known skin doctor behind Meriden "cosmeceuticals" which include $250-an-ounce wrinkle cures, several patents and books, the news outlets report.
Litigation over his ex-wife's interview with the New York Post and plans to speak to the television news program 20/20 began in 2005, a year after their divorce became final.
At issue was a waiver Madeleine Perricone signed in 2003. She signed an confidentiality agreement to prevent pretrial discovery documents from being made public, a move meant to protect the interests of Perricone's lucrative skin-care business.
The divorce was final in 2004, and the initial confidentiality agreement was held to be in force, forever.
"Clearly our client is disappointed because she never thought that she was signing something that would bind her forever about the divorce, and the process that she went through," Madeleine Perricone's lead lawyer, Anne C. Dranginis of Hartford, told the Law Tribune. "She's a citizen who's being denied the opportunity to talk about [her divorce] process."
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
A recovering matrimonial lawyer
Jun 26, 2009 4:37 AM CST
Dear Ms. Dranginis:
Have you forgotten that a contract is a binding document? That a party who, in a settlement agreement, agrees to pay child support based upon present income and then loses his or her job, etc., still has to pay and that the courts won’t change the terms of the agreement unless s/he just about walks through fire? That this is based upon contract law at both the federal and state level? Your client was represented by counsel, presumably you, and it didn’t work out; you failed to foresee the matter or she just “wanted to get it over with” as so many of them do, against your advice. Either way, don’t go public with advocacy which makes you sound silly (being nice here). You had no case on that point and you should have had no case.
Flag this comment
A Contract lawyer
Jun 26, 2009 7:09 AM CST
Of course she can talk about the divorce. She will just be liable for breach.
Flag this comment
Treble
Jun 26, 2009 7:22 AM CST
“[O]ur client is disappointed because she never thought that she was signing something that would bind her forever about the divorce.” Sounds like your client needs new attorneys such a ‘gag order shouldn’t have been a surprise to her.
Flag this comment
CT Lawyer
Jun 26, 2009 7:25 AM CST
While she might be liable for breach, the husband can elect his remedy and alternatively pursue contempt of court, assuming, as I would suspect, that the confidentiality agreement was made an order of the court.
Flag this comment
AndytheLawyer
Jun 26, 2009 7:32 AM CST
Did wifey’s lawyer fail to review and explain the contract’s terms before she signed it? If so, get ready for a malpractice suit.
Flag this comment
Netochka Nezvanova
Jun 26, 2009 10:48 AM CST
Ok, first ..... $250/oz face cream????
Second ... nobody wants to hear about your divorce anyway.
Flag this comment
John
Jun 26, 2009 1:43 PM CST
Courts, and government, can not enforce a violation of free speech via a contempt of court ruling. A private contract may be binding, and may be recognized by the court, but breach merely provides a legal remedy—not an equitable, injunctive remedy.
I don’t see the U.S. Supreme Court upholding such a finding. Then again, I’ve been surprised before. Also, it does not appear she has made the best choice in lawyers in the past.
Flag this comment
Kalifornia Arnold
Jun 26, 2009 5:08 PM CST
If the former wife were to speak ill of her ex-husband’s skin cream business, is he afraid she’d smear his reputation?
Flag this comment
BMF
Jun 26, 2009 10:19 PM CST
So is the ex-husband worried that wife #1 will find out the size of this settlement and come calling for more alimony, or that the rest of us will find out that the first batch of $250 miracle cream was whipped up using 29 cents worth of ingredients from the kitchen cupboard?
Just when I think that no one can have a bigger ego than some of the attorneys who post here, along comes a doctor to prove me wrong!
Flag this comment
NN
Jun 30, 2009 12:10 PM CST
Oh please, get on with your life and stop talking and thinking about the past!
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.