New York Personal Injury Law Blog: Recipient of "I'm Sorry" Letter Fights Back with New Website To Regain Reputation

Eric Turkewitz, The Turkewitz Law Firm, New York, NY  

Monday, October 13, 2008

 

Recipient of "I'm Sorry" Letter Fights Back with New Website To Regain Reputation

The "I'm Sorry" letter from Dallas attorney Jeff Murphrey raced around the internet last week. It raced because he had very creatively skewered opposing counsel Dale Markland for not having the decency to adjourn a deposition while he suffered the ravages of Hurricane Ike (I'm Sorry You're A Jerk (Lawyering 101: Professionalism).

It seems that not only was property damaged, but so too was reputation. Markland, it may come as no surprise, was not pleased at being the butt of Murphrey's letter and its wide dissemination. If you were Googling "Dallas Attorney Dale Markland" you would find a number of unflattering stories on the now famous "I'm Sorry" letter. And that's bad if you happen to be Markland.

So how does a person you fight back and regain one's Google reputation? Dan Solove dealt with the subject of easily ruined reputations in the digital age in his terrific book, The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet, which I reviewed last year. He would no doubt be interested in the path Markland is now taking to battle back.

If you're playing a bit of catch-up here, this was some of the substance of the original letter from Murphrey after Markland demanded expenses and attorneys fees for a busted deposition:
I am sorry that a hurricane hit Houston.

I am sorry that I had no power or water at my house as a result of the hurricane.

I am sorry that I had to extend my stay out of state because of the hurricane.

I am sorry that CenterPoint energy did not bend more quickly to your desires and restore power to my home so that I could return to it sooner.

I am sorry that upon returning to my home on Monday, September 22, 2008, I discovered a roughly 50 ft. X 6 ft. swath of human excrement, used condoms and all the other niceties that come with a raw sewage leak in one's backyard which drains into one of the main bayous in Houston.

I am sorry that I had to threaten City of Houston officials with lawsuits and local news exposure in order to get them to even agree to meet with me about cleaning up the problem.

I am sorry that these city officials chose a date that interfered with our deposition and gave me no other option.

I am sorry that the Houston Public Works Department had to use a fire hose to blow human excrement out of my yard on the day our deposition was scheduled.

I am sorry that the city required my presence at the debacle noted immediately above...

I am sorry that you are the only lawyer in this case that consistently goes out of his way to be unaccommodating and unprofessional with the other lawyers. I am sorry you are from Dallas.
This stuff then appeared not only on my humble little blog, but in far more prominent spaces including Above the Law, the WSJ Law Blog, the Houston Press and elsewhere.

So Markland has now acted, not just escalating a battle between he and Murphrey, but for a far more important reason: to reclaim his name in the event that future potential client's Google him.

And so the Markland and Hanley website is now up, with the most prominent feature being Markland's response to "the Hurricane letter." In fact, this fledgling site only has those two pages (at the moment). Markland notes at one point some of the abuse he has been subjected to:
A telephone call from The Texas Lawyer asking me to respond to all of the scorn I was being subjected to on internet blogs and in emails circulating throughout the country. Not being a blogger, I was unaware of the scorn which had been directed at me by a segment of at least the lawyer populous. Directed to one particular blog site, I found bloggers, apparently some being lawyers, calling me a liar and a scoundrel.
The details of his end of the story are now up there, relying significantly on the assertion that he was unaware there even was a problem with the deposition until he was changing planes while traveling there. He writes at his site:
The hurricane in the Houston area occurred on September 12/13;

Mr. Murphrey cancelled the deposition on September 23 when I was already on my way to Fort Wayne, Indiana for the deposition;
I will offer up one bit of wholly unsolicited advice to Markland: The best way to reclaim your Google reputation is not only by creating that web site (and obviously expanding it to describe your firm and the actual lawyering that you do), but to start blogging. Why? Because by doing so you will be creating more content that will, over time, hopefully bury the hurricane story so that it is but a trifle. When people Google you in the future, you'd rather have that on page five than page one.

You've been introduced to blogging the hard way, but having now been forced into that sphere, you may want to make the best of it. Though you'll have to do it well.

========================================
After posting this, others have weighed in:
  • The Stars At Night; Are Big And Bright ... (Above the Law)
    We're sorry Mr. Markland, but Murphrey's original letter was funny. Beyond that, it seems like you and Murphrey need to sit down and work things out. Maybe you can even use a "telephone" and talk thing through. But if you insist on using forms of communication that can reach a wider and unintended audience, we'll continue to do our part.
  • Lawyers duke it out over post-Hurricane Ike depo (Texas Lawyer)
    The upside to the situation, Markland says, is that he's now in a better position to understand -- and to advise clients on -- the dangers of the Internet age.

Labels: ,


Comments:
His "letter statement" is waaay too long. For all his good intentions, that site will ensure that he and his office will be forever associated with that letter.
 
I agree, it is way too long. But that can be easily edited. I noted on the home page that a "proper" web site is in the works.

In the meantime, the site will get the benefit of a few inbound links that will help its Google pagerank, and if properly edited, will retain the linked URLs and have better content on them.
 
I just read it. Why do I not feel all warm and fuzzy toward him?

If anything, I'm left with the sense that this is not the man I would want to retain to persuade anybody about anything. He sounds so much like a lawyer. A losing lawyer. A lawyer who got his butt nailed to the wall.
 
Well, if Murphrey could have called earlier and didn't, he has a right to be ticked off. I'm always steamed when I lose time because another lawyer was less than diligent and makes me wait, sometimes for hours, until s/he graces us with an appearance.

Whether Murphrey was diligent or not is, at this juncture, beside the point. The more interesting aspect (for me) is how one goes about getting a Google reputation back.

Markland took a much-needed first step, but as both you and David note, his work needs editing.

It will be interesting to see if he goes whole hog to create a significant internet presence for himself so that this spat gets buried by Google.
 
I know Dale Markland. He's a hard-working, effective lawyer and a straight arrow. Everybody involved ought to move along and let the parties make their peace in their own time. Lawyers shouldn't be putting their professional exchanges all over the vacuous internet.
 
I agree with Brian but the real world is that this possibly decent guy (or a guy who made a single relatively minor mistake in the grand scheme of things)who is going to be known for this forever. I really is not fair.

My humble battle is this war is not to name names in blog posts. I don't mention party names if P or D is a individual. I will only use a name in the "Eric Turkewitz wrote on his blog..." context. And if anyone ever asked, I would take their name down.

I'm going to climb off my high horse now and return to the practice of law.
 
Ron:

I generally agree with you, unless the person has done something particularly egregious. In this case, though, both Above the Law and the WSJ Law blog had already published. This one, I admit, was a close call.

But something else important...since Markland has now put up his side of the story, I am able to go back and amend the original post to add in a link to his side. So at the very least, if a newcomer stumbles on my blog before others, at least they will get the benefit of knowing there is a second side to the story.
 
Post a Comment



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

 


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.

 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?