Williams v.

Golub PT Reflection

1. I decided to real the library first. I did the same thing last time
just because it makes more sense to me in my thought process.
However, this time I took the advice from class to not
immediately start marking the paper until I had a clear
understand of what I was trying to take from the case. It worked
out better than last time, although there were so many rules that
I probably left things out.

2. Besides approaching the library differently, this time I also trying

to implement what we learned in class with the IRAC. This was a
little harder for me though because when I saw memo I
automatically found my self writing in a memo style from a 1L
assignment with a hybrid of how Ive been writing my memos at
work to my managing attorney. I am interested to see after it is
graded if this was a good approach or a poor one. I did try to
IRAC as much as possible, but because the elements of privilege
were so intricate.

3. I definitely was able to focus more on what the objective of a PT

when I did this the second time around. I found it semi frustrating
because this format presented a challenge for me because I
could not get myself to just IRAC it because I went into memo-
mode. And my memo-mode is probably different than what is
expected because Ive adjusted how I write memos to satisfying
my attorney, which is how Ive been doing it for four months.

4. This memorandum is to address the legality of whether the

untrue- defamatory statements of Mr. Golub are subject to
privilege, and further to discuss the applicable law protecting
privileged communications. This memorandum will specific
address Count 7 (Page 66, Line 7 of the Complaint) and Count 8
(Page 66, Line 12 of the Complaint).

^^ Id like to improve my opening paragraph.

Is Mr. Golubs defamatory statement protected by

privilege?

Columbia law recognizes two types of privileged

communications; (1) communications that are absolutely
privileged, for which there is no liability even If the defamatory
communication is made with malice; and (2) communications
that are qualifiedly privileged, for which a finding of malice will
prevent the communication from being found privileged.
Appropriately applicable to our case, Litigation Privilege falls
within the specific parameters of Columbia Civil Code section
47(b), that asserts absolute privilege is afforded when the
publication (1) was made in a judicial proceeding; (2) had some
connection or logical relation to the action; (3) was made to
achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) involved litigants or
other participants authorized by law. Thus, in order for Mr.
Golubs defamatory statement to be protected by absolute
privilege, the four elements of litigation privilege would need
to all be satisfied.

^^ I wish I had more time to break up and organize the rules

because I feel like it is a very heavy paragraph and all the
numbers and subsection may confuse the reader.