Quote

I mean, in some cases with libel laws, you know, they can write things about people who have no course of action, because they can't afford to take legal action against them.

It's not fair that the accused is not protected from adverse publicity whilst the accuser is guaranteed anonymity, whatever the verdict.

Unfortunately, no matter how frivolous the lawsuit, you still, of course, have to pay people to defend you on it.

If you're hit with a lawsuit that's untrue and the reasons you're hit with it aren't clear to you, there's a very big inclination on people's part to want to take responsibility for it - that this must be happening because I'm a terrible person, I did something, and I'm getting repaid for it.

Lawyers claim that their clients have been grossly mistreated, which is what criminal defense lawyers are paid to do.

You shouldn't have to sue somebody to get justice. It ought to come through administrative process.

It is unfair to believe everything we hear about lawyers, some of it might not be true.

Libel actions, when we look at them in perspective, are an ornament of a civilized society. They have replaced, after all, at least in most cases, a resort to weapons in defense of a reputation.

I have much to say why my reputation should be rescued from the load of false accusation and calumny which has been heaped upon it.

All the libel lawyers will tell you there's no libel any more, that everyone's given up.