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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT