Legal help from Oprah

July 14, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Oprah Winfrey wants to offer you legal help. The catch: Your case will be documented in her magazine for the world to see.

I came across a link on CNN.com that leads to a promotional page from Winfrey’s magazine, “O, The Oprah Magazine.”

Winfrey has teamed up with legal experts to offer pro bono representation for people being sexually harassed at work. A select number of cases will be chosen after review by the legal panel, and the magazine will report about what happens as the cases progress.

The Web page gives a definition of sexual harassment and has a form of at least 14 questions for people to answer regarding the harassment. There may be more, but you can only continue if you answer the questions.

This seems like a win-win for both parties involved – the magazine gets content and victims of sexual harassment get free representation. I can see potential legal issues arising in publishing these cases in the magazine, especially if the allegations haven’t been proven yet. What if someone who is chosen with a case against a co-worker ends up losing the case or the proof shows the harassment didn’t happen? I guess one way around this would be to not use the real names of involved people and companies, but then would that take away from the power of the story to readers?

I’ll have to start paying attention to “O” magazine to see if these stories come to fruition and how the magazine handles the cases.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT