Legal News

Massachusetts Judge in Hot Water over Letters in Libel Case

By Dan Slater

In 2005, Massachusetts state court judge Ernest Murphy (pictured) won a $2.1 million libel verdict against the Boston Herald for a series criticizing his alleged lenient sentencing practices. Murphy sued over stories quoting “several courthouse sources” that allegedly heard Murphy say a teenage rape victim should “get over it.” Here’s the story, from the NLJ.

But after the original verdict, the Herald’s publisher, Patrick Purcell, received two letters from Murphy, written on the court’s letterhead, demanding payment of $3.26 million and telling Purcell that the Herald had little chance of winning on appeal. Murphy’s first letter warned Purcell that it would be a “mistake. In fact, a BIG mistake” to show the letter to anyone except “the gentleman whose authorized signature will be affixed to the check in question.” Murphy’s second letter said Purcell had “ZERO” chance of winning an appeal.

The Herald wound up paying Murphy $3.4 million including interest after Murphy won an appeal in May 2007.

Still, as it turns out, the sending of the letters just might catch up with Judge Murphy. The Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended a $25,000 fine, a 30-day suspension without pay and a public censure for Judge Murphy for sending the letters. The commission made its recommendations to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which makes final rulings on judicial disciplinary cases.

The commission concluded that Murphy’s conduct was willful and that he attempted to both intimidate Purcell and persuade the Herald to pay him more than the courts had awarded him at that point in the case.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on December 31, 1969 (boomark / email).