Lawyer Who Sued Led Zeppelin Suspended From Practicing Law

July 1, 2016

Francis Malofiy will not be appealing the ‘Stairway To Heaven’ case. He’s been suspended, according to The Hollywood Reporter…

Francis Malofiy – the attorney for the Michael Skidmore has been suspended from practising law for his unruly behaviour during the Led Zeppelin ‘Stairway To Heaven’ case. Throughout the six-day trial, Malofiy had over one hundred sustained objections from Judge R. Gary Klausner. Malofiy also showed a video that was not previously approved to be played during trial.

Led Zeppelin’s attorney Peter Anderson, objected to the playing of the video, as it wasn’t on the joint list of exhibits submitted prior to the trial. But, Malofiy continued to play the video regardless. As a result, US District Judge R Gary Klausner reported that this may lead to a mistrial. Though, this was not needed as Led Zeppelin won the case.

Malofiy’s behaviour in the courtroom has come under scrutiny on more than one occasion due to his lack of regard for the rules. But, it seems as though he may have crossed the line on one too many occasions as he now is unable to practice law. An appellate panel decided to uphold a previously recommended suspension of three months and one day as Malofiy violated rules in Usher’s ‘Bad Girl’ copyright infringement lawsuit. He will now be unable to practice law until the fall.

After Led Zeppelin won the case, Malofiy said they won on technicality and hinted at an appeal. However, Malofiy’s suspension means that he may bot be able to.

2 Responses

Lest it be forgotten... July 1, 2016
This is not the case that the media should focus on, but rather, this one:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/high-school-show-choir-inspired-907881
In view of Constitution of the United States, Article I, § 8, cl. 8, and the Supreme Court of the United States precedents such as Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880), Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 210 (1954) and Sid & Marty Krofft TV Productions Inc. v. McDonald’s Corporation, 562 F. 2d 1157 (9th Cir. C.A. 1977) (citing Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S 210, 217-18 (1954) and Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 102-3 (1880)), as well as the cases cited in previous posts, among other things, I ask, based on the facts set out in the article posted above, which party will ultimately prevail (if an agreement is not reached outside of court) and the defence vigorously brings forward the full force of the law in defence of that action?
danwriter July 3, 2016
“Malofiy had over one hundred sustained objections…” Having your objections sustained by the judge is considered a victory, not a defeat. You meant to say “overruled.”