<p>Law Dean Rod Smolla presented oral argument recently in a major First Amendment appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.</p>
<p>The case is another high-profile example of how multiple members of the Delaware Law School faculty continue to work in the law, as well as instruct students. Smolla teaches constitutional law.</p>
<p>&ldquo;I think continuing to practice law makes me a better teacher and a better dean. When I speak to students about being a lawyer, researching cases, writing briefs and making oral arguments, I speak from experience. It has been exciting to be part of a case like this,&rdquo; Smolla said.</p>
<p>Smolla argued before Circuit Judges Sri Srinivasan, Karen Henderson, and Judith Rogers. Opposing Smolla was attorney Michael Sullivan, of the law firm Levine, Sullivan, Koch, and Schultz in Washington.</p>
<p>Smolla represented Philip Zepter, also known as Milan Jankovic, a prominent European businessman and entrepreneur. Zepter was born in Serbia, and went on to become a successful business leader throughout Europe, living most of his adult life in Monoco. After the fall of the brutal Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, a progressive pro-democracy reformer, Zoran Djindjic, became the leader of Serbia. Zepter, who had not previously been involved in politics, embraced and supported Djindjic, and they became friends. Tragically, Djindjic was assassinated in 2003.</p>
<p>An entity known as the International Crisis Group published a report, known as &ldquo;Report 145&rdquo;, after the assassination, focusing on the state of Serbian reforms after Djindjic&rsquo;s murder. That report accused Zepter of having been a corrupt crony and supporter of Milosevic. Zepter sued, claiming that he had never had any association of any kind with Milosevic, and certainly was not a supporter or crony of the brutal war criminal, known as the &ldquo;Butcher of the Balkans.&rdquo;</p>
<p>The federal district court ruled that Zepter was a public figure, and that he had not produced sufficient evidence to allow a jury trial over whether the defamation was published with &ldquo;actual malice,&rdquo; a First Amendment standard requiring knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth or falsity. On appeal Michael Sullivan argued that the district court was correct, asserting that Zepter&rsquo;s friendship with Djindjic was enough to render him a public figure, and that there was no direct evidence of actual malice.</p>
<p>Smolla sought to get the Court of Appeals to overturn the district court&rsquo;s ruling, asserting that Zepter ought not be deemed a public figure merely because he embraced the pro-democracy reformer Djindjic. Zepter&rsquo;s laudable support of Djindjic, he maintained, ought not subject Zepter to the completely groundless claim that he had supported Milosevic. Moreover, Smolla argued, even if Zepter were deemed a public figure, there was ample evidence to warrant sending the actual malice question to a jury, including evidence that the author of the publication had attempted extortion against Zepter.</p>
<p>The case has gone up and down in the District of Columbia courts for twelve years.&nbsp;&nbsp; Smolla joined Zepter&rsquo;s legal team four years ago for the purpose of assisting with the drafting of briefs and arguing appeals. The Court of Appeals is expected to rule later this year. Audio of the oral argument can be heard <a href="http://1.usa.gov/1oajwdM">here.</a></p>
<p><em>The case is Milan Jankovic, et al. v. International Crisis Group, et al, number 14-7171.</em></p>