Bradley Marshall is a celebrity lawyer, sports agent, prominent civil rights attorney and adjunct professor at SPU, and UW.
He was Mike Webb's lawyer before his fateful fraud case.
He's threatening legal action against BlatherWatch for our 2005 post, Mike Webb's Attorney No Stranger to "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation".
Take it down or else, he says.
Sounds harsh, and for sure our many detractors will be jumping for joy that somebody finally did it, but those weren't our words for this humble servant of justice: they're the ones the bar association used to describe Marshall's actions that violated their rules of professional conduct in 1997.
Or, as The Seattle Times put it: "... his troubled history with the Washington State Bar Association, which polices the legal profession."
(We're pretty sure what's really bothering Mr. Bradley is that when he googles his own name, (like this) up pops BlatherWatch's unflattering, but painfully accurate news about his problems.
That makes Mr. Bradley so cross, he wrote us letter:
Over the course of the last several years you have published the "Blatherwatch," a conservative political blog site.
Approximately two years ago, you published a defamatory and slanderous blog of the undersigned in connection with a story of the famed talk show host, Mike Webb. Despite Mr. Webb's demise, you have continued to make disparaging remarks when reminiscing the memory of past times.
The story you published concerning me was inaccurate, denigrating, and placed me in a false light. The purpose of this writing is to formally request that you remove the article from the BlatherWatch website and cease any further negative reporting concerning the undersigned. Every day that the article remains in the public domain constitutes the continuing harm to my personal and professional standing in the community.
Attached is information that may be of use to you in weighing my request. It is not my desire to seek redress through the courts, but I will do so if you and I are unable to reach an amicable resolution.
Very truly yours, Bradley R. Marshall
As legal "documentation," he sent us a news story he downloaded from the interweb about how bloggers are getting sued. Read everything he sent us here.
Jeez, we don't know where to start, Mr. Marshall. Calling us a "conservative political blog" really hurt; we may consult our legal team about recompense for that cruel and inaccurate designation.
(That you refer yourself as "the undersigned," and then as "me" in the same graf affronts our writerly sensibility and we're reporting you to our attorneys of record, Strunk & White. A small legal crotchit: slander is an oral utterance that defames, libel be written. Nothing, thereby, therefore, therewith we've written, Mr. Bradley, could be legally slanderous).
And nothing we've written about your checkered past ever be considered libelous. The truth trumps the accusation of defamation, right? And we not only wrote the truth: as a matter of fact, our "reporting" (lazy pigs that we are) we copied it out of the daily papers and the Bar Association's very public records!
Indeed, the disciplinary records, as The Times put it, "... do not flatter Marshall. They allege dishonesty, malpractice, domestic violence, harassment."
Read about the disciplinary stain on Marshall's record we reported here. According to the WSBA records, Marshall directed his staff to "emulate the signatures" (read: forge) of a client and a witness on a court document; and then not "accepting personal responsibility" for (read: lying about) the improper signatures or submitting false information to the court. But that's not the worst of it. The Times:
The bar accused Marshall repeatedly of dishonesty and of failing to own up to misconduct. In 2004, a disciplinary board voted for disbarment and require restitution of more than $80,000 after investigating ethical complaints filed by some longshoremen he represented in a 1995 discrimination lawsuit.
In 2007, the case, as reported in the P-I went to the State Supreme Court who decided against disbarment but suspended his license for 18 months and payments to former clients totalling $45,000.
In a sordid, separate case earlier in 2007, the Seattle Times in a larger campaign daylighting improperly sealed court files, revealed that in 1998,
"[Marshall] ... was being sued for sexual harassment by a former employee. Marshall and the woman cut a deal. He handed over a check, and she, in turn, agreed to let the entire file be sealed.
Lawyers call this a quid pro quo: one thing in return for another. Marshall purchased secrecy — with the secret tucked away in a file in King County Superior Court, locked behind a computer password."
Marshall 'splained all this and more in AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PEOPLE OF SEATTLE AND KING COUNTY which he's since taken down from his once-grand website.
Not known for his humility, Marshall commissioned a mural for his Leschi law office memorializing his life and career. The panels are 80 feet long.
Besides the ego thing: he's got one helluva résumé!
Marshall represented the families of Robert Thomas Sr. and Harold McCord Jr., both killed by police. He's taught at Seattle Pacific University (business law and ethics) and at University of Washington (sports-management law).
He's represented such athletes as basketball players Clifford Robinson and James Edwards. He represented Mike Webb in his police brutality case never settled before Webb's death.
Can't figure out why Marshall would want to bring all this up with us. There's no money to be had, here: We once had a pot to piss in, but we left it somewhere, and haven't been able to locate it since around 2002.
By threatening BlatherWatch, Marshall can't change history. In fact, by threatening us, his name with the embarrassing part of his past attached will only be more numerous 'cross the Internets.
Finally B'lam has made it to the next level of Blogging. We can now refer to him as a "Shock Blogger". Congrats B'lam.
Posted by: nevets | July 31, 2008 at 12:38 AM
The proper way to lower your negative Google results is to do good deeds. Help an old lady across the street. Google will take notice.
Posted by: AuthenticAndrew | July 31, 2008 at 01:30 AM
This guy is really sleazy. I know him well.
Posted by: Katelyn | July 31, 2008 at 02:31 AM
How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?
Posted by: HappyHeathen | July 31, 2008 at 04:00 AM
Remember the false election claims in 2006 about "Frivolous Lawsuits?"
Marshall's an attorney right?
He makes his living looking for reasons to sue (justifiable or not), right?
Is he a Republican?
Posted by: Arthur Ruger | July 31, 2008 at 06:12 AM
I gotta say it Bla'M, and you probably will deny it, right wing blogging bastard that you are, but this is the most piss poor (you lost your pot anyway) excuse for a right wing blog that I have ever read. When it comes to blogging the conservative agenda, you miss the target on every single point. Get your head out of your ass and follow the talking points as the are assigned to you by the McChimpybushcheneymchitler administration and quit adding your own spin. Who the hell do you think you are adding your own opinions to the official talking points?
Get your ass back in line or we will have the fellows in black pick you up and re-educate you.
Additionally, the employees of the Dept of Transportation would appreciate it if you would replace your pot in a timely manner and quit throwing your plastic jugs out of the windows on the freeways. They say "that's gross".
Posted by: chuck | July 31, 2008 at 07:12 AM
Unfortunately there are so many folks claiming they've been 'damaged' by blogs lately there is a groundswell out there to make them more accountable. If a party can 'reasonably' quantify these damages - judges are starting to interpret law that favors these so called 'victims'. Doubt this particular case would have any legs tho.
Posted by: Duffman | July 31, 2008 at 07:22 AM
OMG how hilarious. Who wants to hire an attorney who doesn't know the difference between slander and liable??????
chuckles, you can be pretty damn funny when you want to be!
Expecting the Shark to appear at any moment and demand that you remove the word "conservative" from your masthead.
Posted by: sparky | July 31, 2008 at 08:31 AM
did you mean 'libel' sparks
Posted by: Duffman | July 31, 2008 at 08:36 AM
Pelosi on why she has not tried to Impeach President Bush.
"If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story."
She must think Kucinich is a nut also. Oh this so funny.
Posted by: nevets | July 31, 2008 at 09:58 AM
Don't buckle under to these threats, Mike. You are accountable here on this blog, and have acted without malice. You certainly have written nothing that is not already well established in the public record. This guy is blowing smoke. If he comes after you, we'll see to it you get some pro bono legal help. Nobody in this community will let someone like Bradley Marshall shut you up.
Posted by: Malthusiastic | July 31, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Lawyers like to scare people with offical sounding letters. Try this in the public square, Bl'aM. Put all your communication with him on the blog, and keep it open. Marshall will lose if he's stupid enough to continue.
Posted by: cinco | July 31, 2008 at 10:58 AM
The old saying is:
A man who represents himself in court, has a idiot for a client.
In this case perhaps, a man who is represented by this attorney has a complete legal team of idiots?
Posted by: artistdogboy | July 31, 2008 at 11:56 AM
It was a small play on words, Duffman.
Posted by: sparky | July 31, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Of course, very small...(noun/adjective).
btw: do you actually know the 'legal' (not dictionary) definitions of slander and libel.
Posted by: Duffman | July 31, 2008 at 12:49 PM
We got your back, Mikey. (you know who this is, and that I mean it).
Posted by: Beisbol | July 31, 2008 at 01:21 PM
Maybe he can get the now-ex judge here in DC who sued a dry cleaners for $58 million over lost pants to represent him.
Posted by: Rich Johnson | July 31, 2008 at 02:04 PM
I'm not surprised at anything this "laywer" has to say about you. Well, maybe that's not entirely accurate. I am amazed he'd confuse your blog's positions with conservatism.
Keep your posts up and don't be intimidated. I may not agree with much of what you post, but you do a very good job of articulating your positions, and hacks like this should not be allowed to prevail.
Posted by: Perri Nelson | July 31, 2008 at 02:35 PM
I'd have your back, but being recently unemployed, I gotta go get my $540.00 per week for sitting on my donkey.
Where the hell is my gummint food and medical? How do you get them to pay your house payment?
I may not be able to help with the lawyering, but if you need anybody to write a really annoying letter on your behalf. I am your man. I come with references (about the annoying part. Don't ask any of the teachers 'bout spelling, sentence or paragraph structure).
From what I have found surfing these fine innertubes today, Mr Marshall does not appear to be the brightest member of the bar association around these parts.
He looks like one of those fellows that handles the law with pre-trial motions and delay tactics designed to drive his adversary's bonkers with hourly costs.
Do you suppose he is on of those law school students accepted because of affirmative action lowered entrance requirements? I have no knowledge of said thought. I just wondered.
Posted by: chuck | July 31, 2008 at 02:50 PM
Just sending the letter to Mike gets him more unwanted exposure. What a dumbshit.
Posted by: drool | July 31, 2008 at 03:07 PM
This guy is undoubtedly in the tank for Obama, but don't believe Barry has any previous associations with this dude. Just sayin'
Posted by: KS | July 31, 2008 at 10:17 PM
What makes you think he is for Obama??
Posted by: sparky | July 31, 2008 at 10:25 PM
A "conservative site?" Is he drunk?
Posted by: Michele | August 02, 2008 at 01:56 AM
A "conservative site?" Is he drunk?
Posted by: Michele | August 02, 2008 at 01:58 AM
Alright...I've got it: you can countersue him for libeling your site as a 'conservative' site. Easy.
Posted by: Michele | August 02, 2008 at 02:02 AM
Nothing makes us conservatives more happy than when you greedy libs go aroind suing each other, calling each other names and fighting over little morsels of power and scraps of meat and money. Say what you want about conservatives, but we don't go around stabbing each other in the back and "eating our own" like you do. Mock tradition and repect all you want but it's a more wholesome life than you'll ever know.
Posted by: uchitachi | August 02, 2008 at 11:18 PM
yeah, uchitachi, I've been noticing the hearts and flowers you friendly conservative have been sending your presumptive candidate for president since he was nominated. He looks like General Custer.
Posted by: blathering michael | August 03, 2008 at 03:10 AM