When Celebrities Fear
Sting of Publicity,
Whom Do They Call?

Lavely & Singer Writes Letters
And Sometimes Will Sue;
The Star Gets Its Revenge

By PETER LATTMAN
December 9, 2006; Page A1

Star magazine was onto a juicy scoop. "Is Reese Witherspoon expecting her third child?" asked the magazine in a story last summer titled, "Going for Baby No. 3!" After the item ran, Star got a 10-page letter from Ms. Witherspoon's lawyer, John Lavely Jr., that called the story "fiction-masquerading-as-fact" and demanded a retraction.

The magazine issued a retraction of a sort. Writing in its pages that "Reese's attorney assures Star that the Oscar-winning actress is not pregnant," the magazine ran a photo of Ms. Witherspoon wearing a bathing suit, under the headline "Reese Mystery Solved: She's Not Pregnant ... It's Bloat!"

Mr. Lavely sued on Ms. Witherspoon's behalf -- for violation of rights of publicity and invasion of privacy. The case is pending.

Actress Reese Witherspoon is suing Star Magazine, alleging it violated her rights of publicity and invasion of privacy for this June 26 cover article.

In the perpetual cat-and-mouse game between gossip publishers and celebrities' lawyers, Lavely & Singer, of Los Angeles, has long been a prominent player on the side of skittish stars. The firm, which has about 17 lawyers, often threatens media outlets over the pending publication of stories, photographs or videos of its clients, who have included Michael Jackson, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Brad Pitt.

Lately, though, celebrity gossip mavens aren't merely ignoring some Lavely & Singer letters. They are turning the missives against their senders -- defiantly mocking the lawyers.

This year, Lavely & Singer tried to nix an exposé questioning the truth of James Frey's best-selling memoir, "A Million Little Pieces." Days before a Web site called the Smoking Gun planned to post its story, it received a five-page letter from Lavely partner Martin Singer. "It is certainly foreseeable that your publication of a false story about Mr. Frey -- particularly one falsely attacking his credibility -- would imperil both his existing and anticipated economic benefits, resulting in substantial damages to my client."

ENTERTAINING LITIGATION

Read the lawsuit filed by Lavely & Singer on behalf of Reese Witherspoon against Star Magazine. (Adobe Acrobat required)

The Smoking Gun published its story and Mr. Singer's letter. Mr. Frey later admitted to fabricating portions of his book, which had been sold as nonfiction. Mr. Frey hasn't filed a lawsuit against the Smoking Gun, which is owned by Time Warner Inc., of New York.

William Bastone, the editor of the Smoking Gun, has posted on the site numerous Lavely & Singer letters sent to other media outlets as well, including dispatches related to topless photos of actress Jennifer Aniston and reports called false by Lavely & Singer that actress Catherine Zeta-Jones was on the Atkins diet.

"We share the letters with the world because we shouldn't be the only ones enjoying Lavely & Singer's tough-guy threats," says Mr. Bastone, who sometimes calls up a digital photo of the 54-year-old Mr. Singer on his computer. Sometimes, "you gotta poke the tiger with the stick."

While declining to comment on specific matters, Mr. Singer noted in an email that "we insist that our clients tell us the truth, and we do not lie to publications."

In July, Mr. Lavely, 62, tried to prevent the National Enquirer from publishing a story about actress Hilary Swank's alleged affair with her agent, John Campisi. "The false and outrageous claim that he is having an illicit, inappropriate extramarital 'steamy affair' or a 'love relationship' with Ms. Swank...is a vile fabrication," wrote Mr. Lavely, who represents Mr. Campisi in the matter.

The National Enquirer's response? Stories ran in two consecutive issues in September on the supposed relationship, along with photographs of the couple in romantic embraces. Both stories appeared with separate items dissing Lavely & Singer. "Lawyers Don't Want Enquiring Minds to Know," said one, which went on to call Mr. Lavely "our favorite, killing tree after tree with a string of threatening letters." The next week, the Enquirer published Lavely & Singer's letterhead, including its phone and fax numbers. No suit has been filed against the Enquirer.

David Perel, editor in chief of the National Enquirer, says he personally wrote both Lavely sidebars. "I wasn't trying to bash the lawyers but rather to show the readers what goes on behind the scenes in the reporting of a big story," Mr. Perel says. He adds that he has a lot of respect for Lavely & Singer.

As far as Lavely & Singer is concerned, the snide retorts aren't mere editors' fun; they are "mean-spirited mockery" used as "an intimidation tactic" to deter the firm and other lawyers from protecting clients' rights, wrote Lynda Goldman, a partner at Lavely & Singer, in an email.

SEE THE COMPLAINT LETTERS

• A Lavely & Singer complaint letter to the Smoking Gun on behalf of James Frey, attempting to quash an expose on James Frey's bestselling memoir, "A Million Little Pieces."

• Two Lavely & Singer letters threatening to sue Gawker for publishing items about its client, Los Angeles billionaire Ronald Burkle: First Letter | Second Letter

Messrs. Lavely and Singer founded the firm in 1980, specializing in entertainment litigation. The firm, which typically charges its clients by the hour, developed its niche with celebrities through word of mouth, Mr. Singer says. Today, a lot of business is directed to the firm by Hollywood publicists. (The Wall Street Journal has received two complaint letters from Lavely & Singer, both unrelated to the publication of this article.)

Much of the media's newfound swagger vis-a-vis the firm can be chalked up to the irreverence of the blogosphere, where next-generation gossip hounds at Web sites like PerezHilton, Pink Is the New Blog and the Superficial ply their trade. Smaller online publishers can be a libel lawyer's nightmare because they "have very little in the way of cash but have a lot in the way of reach," says Harvey Levin, a lawyer turned television producer who is now managing editor of TMZ.com, a gossip Web log, or blog, owned by Time Warner.

In July, Gawker, a media news and gossip Web site owned by blog company Gawker Media, published an item about money manager Jeffrey Epstein, who had recently been indicted in Florida for solicitation of prostitution. (Mr. Epstein has entered a plea of not guilty.) The item also mentioned Los Angeles billionaire Ronald Burkle in a way that, according to a letter from Lavely & Singer to Gawker, "falsely portrays Mr. Burkle as a would-be felon who has somehow 'managed' to avoid being charged for engaging in illegal sexual relations with underage girls on his jet."

Lavely & Singer called Gawker's statements false and defamatory and demanded a retraction and "sincere apology."

"Here it is," responded Gawker, which posted the letter. "We're sincerely sorry that Mr. Burkle and Mr. Epstein have a few things in common." Gawker hasn't been sued.

The high stakes of being first out with the latest breakup, baby or breast enlargement has influenced the cost-benefit calculus in deciding whether to publish a juicy tidbit or hold back for fear of a lawsuit.

"Five years ago, if we didn't publish something, it just didn't get published," says Michael Kahane, general counsel of American Media Inc., the parent company of the Star and National Enquirer. "Now, if we don't publish it, we may get beaten out on the story."

Which doesn't mean a Lavely letter gets treated as scratch paper. "You would be stunned at how many stories out there never got published because of Lavely & Singer's threats," says TMZ's Mr. Levin.

Richard Johnson, who runs the New York Post's Page Six gossip column, says he respects the lawyers at Lavely & Singer. "We'll make a phone call to a subject of a story and in a matter of hours we'll start getting a barrage of faxes from them," said Mr. Johnson, who has two, four-inch-thick envelopes of letters from lawyers on his desk. "I'll always read them carefully and forward copies to my lawyers."

Lawyers representing celebrities have to contend with a body of U.S. libel law that tilts in the media's favor. Stories about public figures, including entertainers and politicians, are afforded an additional layer of legal protection. A public figure alleging libel must prove that the publication acted with "actual malice," which means it published something it knew to be false or recklessly disregarded the truth. Truth is an absolute defense in a libel suit.

Last month, a California state court rejected a defamation claim brought by Lavely & Singer on behalf of Britney Spears against US Weekly. Ms. Spears alleged the magazine libeled her when it published an article about a sexually explicit home video she purportedly made with her husband. (Ms. Spears recently filed for divorce.) Lavely & Singer says it hasn't decided whether to appeal.

In dismissing the suit, the court suggested that times have changed. "In 'The Dick Van Dyke Show,' a married couple slept in different beds, but in 'Sex and the City,' the single women slept in many different beds." US Weekly's article on the sex video wasn't defamatory, the court said, since Ms. Spears has "put her modern sexuality squarely, and profitably, before the public eye."