Now in Legal Rebels:
Posted Dec 07, 2011 05:54 pm CST
Last week, we noted a story about a dental patient unhappy with a bill totaling nearly $4,800 suing to overturn a contract he signed banning him from criticizing his dentist. According to his suit (PDF), to “stifle any public criticism,” Dr. Stacy Makhnevich requires her patients to waive any right to comment publicly on or evaluate her services before she will perform any dental work.
Considering the state of Makhnevich’s Yelp page, a waiver can only do so much to prevent negative commentary online, whether it’s justified or unfair. And an angry plaintiff can always launch a website attacking a law firm or one of its clients, whether his or her case is justified or without merit.
So this week, we’d like to ask you: Have you ever had to deal with a Web attack against yourself or a client? If so, how did you deal with it? Even if you’ve never found yourself in this situation, please share if you have thoughts about possible good or poorly considered approaches.
Answer in the comments.
Read the answers to last week’s question: Should SCOTUS Arguments Be Televised? If They Were, Would You Watch?
Posted by Phila: “Although I would certainly watch, I don’t think they should be televised. It’s the justices’ job to play devil’s advocate and ask tough questions, which may or may not reflect their actual leanings on the case. The media would have a field day with this. I’m all for increasing discussion of these cases among the general populace, but I’m not sure if TV is the solution.”
A reader’s suggestion gave us this week’s question. Do you have an idea for a future question of the week? If so, contact us.