The New York Times Loses Multi-Million Dollar 15 Year Legal Battle For Slandering a Well Known Beverly Hills Attorney/Businessman

Beverly Hills July 26, 2004 -- Final court documents have shown that the United States Supreme Court left
intact a $2.25 million libel judgment against the New York Times and the Santa Barbara News Press in favor
of Beverly Hills attorney/businessman Leonard M. Ross after a long 15 year battle, which is believed to be the
most expensive libel case in New York Times history.

The defamatory front page articles, which were published in the News Press, then a division of the New York
Times, contained false information, linking Ross to investor fraud activities conducted by a former partner years
after their association ended, including statements and an overriding implication that Ross had been investigated
for these frauds when, in fact, no such investigation ever existed as to Ross. Two juries and the Court of
Appeals unequivocally vindicated Ross, with the Appellate Court stating specifically "In 1977, a multi-court
indictment was filed against Marlin. It related solely to activities commencing in 1973, after Ross and Marlin's
relationship had been severed, and ending in 1976."

Shortly after the November 1988 and February 1989 articles, Ross gave the News Press the opportunity to
correct the false information, but the News Press refused to do so. Ross then took legal action to clear his
name and reputation.

"In failing to correct, and thus failing Ross and its readers, the Times/News Press resorted to long, protracted,
litigation in an attempt to insulate itself from liability, using the defensive shield oftentimes afforded the media in
libel actions, even under circumstances when they publish false and defamatory information," said Adam Bram,
Ross' partner in the Ross & Bram LLP, Beverly Hills based small boutique business and litigation oriented law
firm which served as co-counsel and handled all aspects of the lengthy appeals. Among these defenses, the
Times tried to impose a higher standard requiring malice for liability, by attempting to have Ross deemed a
limited purpose public figure. The Appellate Court rejected this stating, "Ross had never given a press
conference, never held or run for public office, and never given public speeches" and "[neither his shareholder
status, his professional status, nor his status as a prominent business person invited public attention such that he
relinquished his concerns about his name."

Bram noted that, "Mr. Ross' unmatched intelligence, tenacity, legal and business background, and unwavering
determination to pursue the media giant [New York Times to vindicate himself in fighting for what he believes,
also struck a blow in favor of all private persons who find themselves the target of irresponsible reporters.
Judgments against the media are rare, in large part due to the expensive and generally overwhelming litigation
tactics employed by the media."

Ross is hopeful that "through this victory, a message will have been sent to the Times and the media at large to
exercise more supervision regarding over-zealous reporters and their agendas and stories so that this does not
happen to others. It is time that the media acts responsibly. Indeed, in this day and age when people are
oftentimes judged impersonally and their lives affected by what others read in newspapers and on the internet,
and through which information readily flows, it is time that the media respects the importance and integrity of
one's name and reputation, without relying on and resorting to legalistic maneuvers to protect itself from
publishing falsehoods."

Court of Appeal of California Second Appellate District, Division Three Case # B151127
US Supreme Court :Santa Barbara News-Press v Ross Case# 03-1338





This article courtesy of http://infodirectorylawyers.com.
You may freely reprint this article on your website or in
your newsletter provided this courtesy notice and the author
name and URL remain intact.

Submit Your Article