Connection lost
Server error
LEWIS v. TIME INC. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A lawyer sued Time magazine for libel after it called him a “shady practitioner.” The court ruled for Time, holding that opinions based on disclosed, true facts are constitutionally protected from defamation claims, even if they imply dishonesty.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that under the First Amendment, an expression of opinion is not actionable as defamation if it is based on disclosed, true, non-defamatory facts, even if the opinion itself is derogatory and implies professional misconduct.
LEWIS v. TIME INC. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Jerome Lewis, a lawyer, sued TIME Inc. for defamation based on an article about lawyer ethics. The article mentioned Lewis by name, stating he had been successfully sued for malpractice and fraud by “clients.” It also referred to “shadier practitioners” and noted that “[t]hanks to painfully slow bar discipline, … Lewis is still practicing law.” Lewis claimed the article’s “gist” or “sting” defamed him by implying he was an unethical and dishonest lawyer. The district court took judicial notice of two public-record civil judgments against Lewis: one for malpractice and another involving a successful counterclaim for fraud by a single client. The district court granted partial summary judgment for TIME, finding that the factual statements about the judgments were substantially true and that the negative inferences drawn from them were constitutionally protected expressions of opinion. The only issue that went to a bench trial was whether the use of the plural “clients” was a material variance from the truth, which the court found it was not.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a statement of opinion that implies dishonesty or professional misconduct constitutionally protected from a defamation claim when the publication discloses the true, non-defamatory facts upon which the opinion is based?
Yes. The court affirmed summary judgment for TIME, holding that the allegedly Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is a statement of opinion that implies dishonesty or professional misconduct constitutionally protected from a defamation claim when the publication discloses the true, non-defamatory facts upon which the opinion is based?
Conclusion
This decision reinforces the constitutional shield for "pure" opinion in defamation law, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse c
Legal Rule
Under the First Amendment, a statement of opinion is not actionable as Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis began with the principle from Gertz v. Robert Welch, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscin
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A statement of opinion is constitutionally protected from defamation claims if
