AutoAdmit defendant sues Yalies

When three Yale Law School students were targeted by sexually explicit and derogatory posts in the online legal chatroom AutoAdmit in 2005, two of them took their case to court. Now the people they sued are firing back.

Anthony Ciolli, a former AutoAdmit director, filed a lawsuit against those two students and their lawyers on Tuesday in a Philadelphia state court, seeking at least $50,000 in damages for abuse of process, libel and false light that he alleges cost him a job offer at a Boston law firm.

Ciolli was originally named a defendant in the students’ suit, filed last June in a federal court in New Haven. But he was dropped from the suit in November when the plaintiffs decided to focus on pursuing the 39 authors of the allegedly defamatory posts.

Ciolli declined to comment Wednesday evening.

Meanwhile, in the original suit, one of the unnamed defendants — whose identities are still unknown — moved last week to quash the subpoenas a federal judge issued to their Internet service providers in January in the hopes of unmasking them. That motion is still pending.

Ciolli’s lawsuit contends that he was improperly sued for those comments when he was not liable for them, said his attorney, Mark Jakubik.

“This case is not about defending or exonerating anyone for the absolutely reprehensible comments that were made about the female law students on AutoAdmit,” Jakubik said. “It’s about what are the appropriate boundaries for seeking redress for those comments, and we think those boundaries were crossed to Anthony’s great detriment.”

Marc Randazza, who represented Ciolli when he was still a defendant in the Connecticut suit, said while everyone can agree the targeted students were wronged, suing Ciolli was not the proper legal remedy.

“It exceeded the boundary of what the law is there for,” he said.

Federal law immunizes Web site administrators from liability for content posted by others, Daniel Solove LAW ’97 — a law professor at The George Washington University and author of “The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet” — wrote in an e-mail to the News.

David Rosen LAW ’69, an attorney for the Yale students and now a defendant in Ciolli’s suit, could not be reached for comment Wednesday because he is out of the country. Mark Lemley, the other attorney-turned-defendant, also could not be reached for comment. The two law students did not reply to e-mails.

Both wrongful initiation and libel claims are typically very hard to win, said Robert Post LAW ’77, a professor at Yale Law School. A very stringent test applies to proving that any harm the plaintiff sustained was a direct consequence of being sued, he said.

But people who allege they have been libeled or wrongfully prosecuted often sue as a way of vindicating their reputation by demonstrating they believe in their innocence, whether they win or not in the end, he said

Ciolli, who graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in May 2007, worked at Edwards, Angell, Palmer & Dodge in the summer of 2006 and had been offered a full-time job there after graduation, according to the complaint he filed.

But in late March 2007, the firm’s hiring partner called him about several accusations leveled against Ciolli related to the AutoAdmit case, such as that Ciolli was responsible for starting a Web site that ranked the physical appearance of female law students at the nation’s top 14 law schools. The complaint denies Ciolli had any involvement with that site. The following month, the firm rescinded his job offer, the suit says.

The complaint alleges that the law students and their lawyers wrongfully initiated civil proceeding against Ciolli, that the students and a Web site they solicited to help restore their reputations libeled and slandered him and that the publicity they directed toward him placed him in a false light, with the result that he lost his job offer.

The two law students, who were anonymous as the plaintiffs in the Connecticut suit, were named in the Pennsylvania case.

“There was no real big secret about who they were,” Randazza said.

Unlike the original suit, Ciolli’s complaint contains nothing that would be considered scandalous or would justify withholding the students’ names, Jakubik said.

“When folks engage in the kind of conduct that is outlined in the complaint, I’m not sure they should be given the cloak of anonymity,” he said.



    I would be very interested to know whether Mr. Ciolli filed and argued a Rule 11 motion in the Federal District Court action. If it had been filed, was it dropped or was it unsuccessful -- if sanctions issued on the basis of such a Rule 11 motion the press might tell us. A successful Rule 11 motion would mean that the Federal Judge found that the claims in the complaint in the District Court action were meritless. A failure to prevail on such a motion might be construed as evidence of the opposite. Failure to file such a motion might be argued to be an indication the particular defendant in that action did not find any harm worth Complaining about. And note that the sequence of events here relative to the alleged action by the law firm who supposedly rescinded their offer is arguably not crucial, rather it might be argued that a defect in the pleadings such as the presence of falsehoods (were the facts set forth "on information and belief") should have been apparent ab initio to the defendant, who presumably would be best situated among the parties to make such assessment.

  • Anonymous

    comment above is incomprehensible.

    It might be construed as evidence of the opposite? What an insight, and yet not how the legal system works. Failure does not prove the null.


    Dear anonymous
    To speak in your pidgin: "comment above is incoherent."
    So re your "comment above is incomprehensible." (I'll look on that as an admission of sorts.) And you would claim the following "statement" somehow is? "What an insight, and yet not how the legal system works."
    How does it work pray tell oh sagacious one? Well?
    Can you understand "Failure does not prove the null," and "might be construed" are consonant?
    Your string of fortune cookie pronouncements make it plain that you have no idea whatsoever how the "legal system works." Or do you actually believe you can somehow determine to a certainty the outcome of a Judge's decision or even what a Judge might find relevant to a determination?
    The real question is why I would bother even posing those questions to you, for the answer is clear…
    All is not lost, however -- at least you gave me a good laugh.

  • Marc J. Randazza

    Excellent article.

    Why is it that student journalists seem to write balanced and accurate articles about this case, yet "professional" journalists seem to screw the whole thing up?

    If anything, you'd think that a Yale paper would be biased toward the Yale students. I haven't seen one whiff of that kind of integrity from this paper.

    Kudos. If only the AP and the WaPo had such ethics and professionalism.

  • Pingback: auto insurance in massachusetts()

  • Pingback: limo hire London , limousine hire London , limo hire , limousine hire , hummer limo hire ,London limo hire , London limousine hire ,()

  • Pingback: auto car insurance quotes()

  • Pingback: Coxsackie()

  • Pingback: tvorba web stranok()

  • Pingback: The Jakubik Law Firm | Need help with the law?()