Complain about a product or service

Lawyer’s Threats, Intimidation Shut Down Web Site

Lawyer objected to CyberTrialLawyer-Sucks.com

October 5, 2008

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeks an order that would prevent John Dozier of Dozier Internet Law from pursuing defamation and trademark claims against Ronald Riley, who runs the Web site CyberTrialLawyer-Sucks.com. The suit also asks for attorneys’ fees, court costs and $1,000 in punitive damages.

In the past month, three successive Internet hosting companies have taken down Riley’s Web site after each company received a warning letter from Dozier. Among Dozier’s complaints was that Riley used his firm’s name to link to an unrelated Web site, which Dozier claimed was a trademark infringement.

In at least two cases, companies were told that if they didn’t take down CyberTrialLawyer-Sucks.com, they would run the risk of having the Web sites of all their clients shut down.

Last month, Dozier sued Riley and several related companies in Virginia Circuit Court, alleging “statutory trademark infringement” and “common law trademark infringement.” However, Dozier has never served that lawsuit on Riley or the other defendants, Public Citizen said.

Dozier’s claims are baseless and intended to squelch Riley’s right to free speech, said Public Citizen attorney Paul Alan Levy, who is representing Riley, along with local counsel Thomas Wolf of the Richmond firm of LeClair Ryan.

“The courts repeatedly have struck down these types of bullying tactics and upheld the public’s right to criticize people and companies on the Internet – something which Mr. Dozier was well aware of when he began his intimidation campaign against our client,” Levy said. “Not liking what someone says about you is not enough reason to throw out the First Amendment.”

Levy argued that Dozier has no right under the trademark laws to force Riley to hyperlink the names “Dozier” and “Dozier Internet Law” to Dozier’s own Web site, and, in any event, his use of the terms was fair use and protected, non-commercial speech.

Although Riley’s site admittedly “drips contempt for Dozier Internet Law,” the statements are not defamatory because most of them are opinions, and any statements of fact on the site are not false, Public Citizen argued.

The suit asks the court to declare Riley’s Web site lawful and not in violation of Dozier’s legal rights.

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.

Share		Follow us on Twitter.

Back to the top |