Hartford, Conn. – A Connecticut court has rejected a lawsuit by a solo practitioner who sought legal recognition that his involvement in a disparaging news article about a prominent law firm partner was constitutionally protected. The court ruled the action falls under the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, designed to prevent lawsuits that intimidate or silence individuals on issues of public interest.
Eric Grayson of Grayson & Associates had filed the suit after being accused of playing a role in the publication of a New York Post article in 2020. The article in question detailed allegations against A. Mark Getachew, a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, and his wife, DeNora Getachew. According to the report, the Getachews were accused by their landlords of failing to pay $11,000 monthly rent for a lavish Connecticut mansion while disputing responsibility for unmet property maintenance.
The origin of the dispute traces back to claims by the landlords, Lawrence Rutkowski, former Disney CFO, and his company, L&S Investments, over a breach of lease agreement due to unpaid repairs for various facilities including a pool and a hot tub.
In response to the article, the Getachews launched a legal counterattack accusing Grayson and his then clients, the landlords, of abusing the legal process. They alleged that Grayson intentionally filed a court affidavit about their rental disagreements which later surfaced in the press, thereby damaging their reputation.
This federal lawsuit by the Getachews in October 2023 followed their initial state court action concerning the lease breach. Earlier this April, a federal judge denied a motion to dismiss the Getachews’ claims against Grayson and the landlords, intensifying the legal battle.
Presiding Judge Edward Krumeich II emphasized that the lawsuit by Grayson was impermissible under anti-SLAPP — a law intended to protect free speech against legal intimidation. Judge Krumeich articulated that the issue was of genuine public concern, noting the broader context of similar accusations against affluent tenants exploiting eviction moratoriums during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Furthermore, Krumeich maintained that ruling in favor of Grayson would preemptively invalidate the ongoing federal lawsuit, which would be inappropriate as it would serve as an advisory opinion rather than a resolution.
The court’s decision places a spotlight on the tension between First Amendment rights and the potential misuse of legal processes to manage public image and discourse. Legal experts underscore the necessity of balancing these interests to uphold justice while protecting freedom of speech.
Officials representing both Grayson and the Getachews have yet to comment publicly following the dismissal of the suit. This lack of response leaves some questions unanswered, particularly concerning strategies moving forward in the ongoing federal litigation.
This case serves as a noteworthy instance of the complex interplay between law, personal rights, and media influence, highlighting the intricate challenges individuals face in navigating reputation, legal accountability, and public interest.