A lawyer sent a letter to the executive director of the Collection Bureau and contended that another lawyer had misled the collection officers while accepting representation in the collection cases.
The Court held that portraying a lawyer in a negative light and as a dishonest person constitutes defamation. Defamation is publication that may: (1) Humiliate a person in the eyes of mankind or make him an object of hatred, contempt or ridicule on their part; (2) Denigrate a person due to actions, behavior or attributes attributed to him; or (3) Harming a person in his position, whether in a public position or in another position, in his business, profession or in his job. Here, the lawyer sent a letter to the executive director of the Collection Bureau in which he contended against another lawyer that he replaced him by misrepresentation with a lack of power and against the client’s wishes while committing deliberate deception. However, in practice the lawyer acted according to a power of attorney given to him by the client who agreed to the replacement of the representation. Therefore, attributing the deception to the lawyer harmed his good name, integrity and livelihood and therefore constitutes defamation.