Sidley law firm, psychologists square off in defamation case over terror interrogations - Reuters
Signage is seen outside of the law firm Sidley Austin at their legal offices in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 10, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly
- Retired military psychologists want to revive defamation lawsuit against Sidley Austin and the American Psychological Association
- Army officers said law firm report destroyed their personal and professional reputations
The company and law firm names shown above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this feature as we continue to test and develop in beta. We welcome feedback, which you can provide using the feedback tab on the right of the page.
(Reuters) - A group of retired military psychologists on Wednesday urged the D.C. Court of Appeals to revive their defamation lawsuit against law firm Sidley Austin and the American Psychological Association.
The psychologists sued over a 2015 APA-commissioned report spearheaded by Sidley partner David Hoffman that found APA officials had "colluded" with U.S. defense officials to issue "loose, high-level ethical guidelines" for U.S. personnel interrogating detainees following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks of 2001.
The Bush administration authorized the use of "enhanced" interrogation techniques such as waterboarding on terrorism suspects. Critics said these techniques amounted to torture.
The plaintiffs — Army field officers Morgan Banks, Debra Dunivin and Larry James — alleged that Sidley's 2015 report destroyed their personal and professional reputations.
Attorneys for Sidley and the APA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The Hoffman report identified Banks and Dunivin as "key players" in a task force created by the APA in 2005 that worked closely with U.S. defense officials to "produce an outcome that would please DoD." James was also a member of the task force.
The plaintiffs said they worked for years to stop abusive interrogations, including torture, of people detained by the U.S. government. After the report's publications, they alleged they faced "renewed and ongoing calls" for criminal and war crime prosecution.
A lower court dismissed their claims against Sidley and Hoffman in March 2020 on the grounds that it violated Washington's Anti-SLAPP Act, which allows defendants to quickly dismiss certain lawsuits. The plaintiffs say the D.C. law violates the 1st Amendment right of petition.
Their appeal is being considered by a three-judge panel, which peppered the attorneys with questions during a three-hour oral argument Wednesday.
The panel pressed Bonny Forrest, a San Diego attorney representing the plaintiffs, on her contention that the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act is the most "onerous" law of its kind in the United States.
"Because it hasn't been limited, right now, it's all over the place," she told the court. Forrest said the Hoffman report was riddled with inaccuracies.
Thomas Hentoff, a Williams & Connolly partner representing Sidley and Hoffman, countered Wednesday that Sidley stood by the report, which he said resulted from interviews with 150 witnesses and reviews of 50,000 documents. He said the alleged inaccuracies Forrest cited did not contradict the findings of Sidley's report.
The case is Morgan Banks v. Hoffman, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, No. 20-cv-0318.
For the plaintiffs: Bonny Forrest
For Sidley Austin and David Hoffman: Thomas Hentoff of Williams & Connolly
For the American Psychological Association: Barbara Wahl of ArentFox Schiff
source: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/sidley-law-firm-psychologists-square-off-defamation-case-over-terror-2022-04-20/
Your content is great. However, if any of the content contained herein violates any rights of yours, including those of copyright, please contact us immediately by e-mail at media[@]kissrpr.com.