- within Transport, Accounting and Audit and Immigration topic(s)
On October 16, 2025, the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a significant ruling in Shapley v. Lowell, dismissing with prejudice a politically charged defamation lawsuit brought against Steptoe's client, attorney Abbe Lowell. The decision reinforces a foundational principle of legal advocacy: attorneys must be free to represent their clients vigorously, even in high-profile and contentious matters, without facing retaliatory litigation for expressing legal opinions.
The plaintiffs – two IRS agents who publicly alleged that a high-profile individual received preferential treatment during a federal tax investigation – sued Lowell for defamation. They claimed that statements made by Lowell and other members of the legal team, in letters to Congress and government officials, falsely accused them of criminal conduct. These statements were made in response to the agents' extensive media campaign and congressional testimony, which included disclosures of taxpayer information.
In a detailed 25-page opinion, Judge Richard J. Leon granted the motion to dismiss filed by Steptoe on Lowell's behalf, finding that the challenged statements were not actionable as defamation. The court held that the statements constituted "expressions of a legal opinion," not verifiable factual assertions. Importantly, the court emphasized that the context of the statements – letters written by defense counsel during an ongoing criminal investigation – made clear that they were part of legal advocacy.
"Viewed in the context of the letters, the challenged statements are a legal opinion advanced by defense attorneys to Government officials during a highly charged criminal investigation of their client," Judge Leon wrote. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' attempt to amend their complaint, finding that any amendment would be futile.
The court's analysis focused heavily on the context in which the statements were made. Because the letters were part of ongoing legal representation and included detailed factual and legal reasoning, they were deemed protected expressions of opinion. The ruling underscores that even strongly worded legal arguments – particularly those made in defense of a client – are protected under the First Amendment and cannot form the basis of a defamation claim unless they imply provably false facts.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
