Lawyer’s Defamation, Conspiracy Claims Revived by Appeals Court

A Louisiana attorney will get a second chance to pursue his defamation and conspiracy allegations against rival legal counsel after a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday the claims were wrongly dismissed.

Larry English’s defamation claim isn’t precluded by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine since his allegations are rooted in the defendants’ conduct rather than an unfavorable state court judgment, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod said for the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The doctrine, which derives from two US Supreme Court cases, says “inferior” federal courts can’t modify or reverse state court judgments, absent congressional authorizations.

“English does not seek to overturn the state-court judgment; rather, he pursues damages for injuries caused by” the defendants’ allegedly defamatory statements made during a Louisiana state court proceeding, Elrod said, partially vacating the district court’s dismissal of two of English’s four claims.

English represented a Louisiana State University employee who made Title IX allegations. Vicki Crochet and Robert Barton with Taylor Porter Brooks & Phillips LLP, were brought on as outside counsel to investigate the allegations, but the attorneys were accused of misconduct during the inquiry. English and his client sued the two attorneys and their firm in Louisiana state court, alleging they violated the Louisiana Racketeering Act.

The defendants moved for sanctions against English and his client, alleging they made false or sensational allegations. The state court granted the sanctions and awarded Crochet and Barton more than $330,000.

English sued the two and their firm in district court, alleging they defamed him during the sanctions process, negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon him, and participated in a civil conspiracy. But the lower federal court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice.

But just because English’s defamation claim is inextricably intertwined with the state court sanction judgment doesn’t mean it’s precluded under the narrow ground Rooker-Feldman occupies, Elrod said.

“Our court and numerous federal circuit courts have made clear that the ‘inextricably intertwined’ standard does not expand the core holding of Rooker or Feldman,” the opinion said.

Elrod reversed dismissal of English’s conspiracy claim since he has now has claimed a “a cognizable underlying tort.”

The district court did, however, correctly conclude English’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim failed to meet the standard to properly state the allegation, Elrod said.

Judges Edith Brown Clement and Catharina Haynes joined the opinion.

English represents himself. Jones Walker LLP represents the defendants.

The case is English v. Crochet, 5th Cir., No. 25-30074, 10/8/25.