‘Most Famous Lawyer’ Faces His Own Words at Malpractice Trial

Trial attorney Geoffrey Fieger, who garnered fame for his representation of Dr. Jack Kevorkian in murder trials, must face down his own $50 million assessment of a lawsuit in a malpractice case where the attorney’s words could come back to haunt him.

Fieger can’t prevent a jury in a malpractice suit against him from hearing statements he issued to the media about a case he brought for two swimmers—one died and another was injured—related to live electric current running through the water around a Traverse City, Mich., dock, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

The swimmers’ case was dismissed because the local government had immunity, and the swimmers sued Fieger claiming he should have brought a different claim under federal maritime law. Fieger now claims the case was a dud and the plaintiffs and their family didn’t lose out on money damages.

A three-judge panel said in an unauthored opinion that a jury should be able to weigh these contradictory claims.

When “speaking to the press via the release, Fieger was quoted as explicitly blaming electrified water resulting from municipal negligence as the reason for Knudsen’s death,” the court said. “Allowing the jury to consider Fieger’s contradictory statements is relevant to whether the jury would ultimately believe his potential testimony at trial that plaintiffs’ claims were worthless.”

Fieger, who claims to be America’s “most famous lawyer,” said that his statements to the press about the electrocution incident were part of a preliminary case assessment and should be kept out of the malpractice trial under Michigan Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403, which concern relevance, hearsay, and excluding statements that could confuse the jury.

The appeals panel knocked down each argument.

They found Fieger’s statements to the press relevant to whether the jury should believe his new position that one of the swimmers died due to drugs not electrocution. Since the statements were Fieger’s own words used against him, that qualifies for a “statement against interest” exception to hearsay exclusion; and hearing the statement—which goes directly to the points at issue—wouldn’t confuse jurors.

“In a last-ditch effort to avoid having a jury consider Fieger’s statements to the press, defendants argue that it would be against public policy to admit the statements” and “that there might be a chilling effect if statements made during the course of representation can later be used against an attorney in a legal-malpractice claim,” the court said.

“While such a public policy undoubtedly exists,” the court said, “extension to the point suggested by defendants would effectively bar any claim of legal malpractice.”

The case is Long v. Fieger, Mich. Ct. App., No. 363259, 12/14/23.