Judge clears Inquirer in libel claim- The best thing you'll read this year-

COURT OF COMMON  PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA  COUNTY
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION
___________________________________________________________
RICHARD A. SPRAGUE, ESQUIRE,
v.
JILL PORTER; [PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER]
___________________________________________________________RAU, J.
OPINION
“As long as the reason of man continues fallible,
and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.”
—James Madison - THE FEDERALIST NO. 10.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Philadelphia attorney Richard A. Sprague (Appellant) represented his friend State Senator Vincent Fumo during a federal investigation and prosecution for public corruption and obstruction of justice. Senator Fumo was charged, among other things, with deleting emails and wiping computer hard drives during the federal investigation. On February 8, 2007, Mr. Sprague called a press conference and stated that his client had “sought advice from a lawyer—not me—on whether to change his policy” before deleting emails during the federal investigation. Sometime later, Mr. Sprague’s personal and professional relationship with Senator
Fumo changed and they parted ways. In February 2009, Mr. Sprague was called by the prosecution at Senator Fumo’s criminal trial. Mr. Sprague testified that notwithstanding what he said at the press conference two years earlier, he had never believed Senator Fumo’s claim of having relied upon legal advice when he purged emails: “Did I believe it? Of course not.”
Philadelphia Daily News reporter Jill Porter had been covering the public corruption trial in her weekly column from the beginning. She attended the earlier press conference and the trial. Two days after Mr. Sprague’s trial testimony, Ms. Porter wrote, “Sprague, once Fumo’s beloved mentor and best friend, labeled Fumo a liar when he testified at Fumo’s trial this week. But he acknowledged that he was something of a liar, too.” Ms. Porter quoted Mr. Sprague’s statements two years earlier at the press conference when he said Senator Fumo had relied upon a lawyer’s advice in deleting the emails. She then quoted his recent trial testimony when he admitted that he had never believed the story he told about Senator Fumo’s defense at the press conference. Ms. Porter posed questions in her column about Mr. Sprague’s conduct:
“So one of the most powerful attorneys in Philadelphia believes that it’s acceptable to deliberately mislead the public on behalf of a client?
That it’s appropriate to vigorously perpetrate an untruth, as part of his legal obligation?”
See Ct. Ex. A, Jill Porter, The law, duty, and truth, PHILA. DAILY NEWS, Feb. 20, 2009, at 6, 12, attached; Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 4. Ms. Porter answered the questions by writing that “Sprague’s posturing on Fumo’s behalf may not be officially unethical” but “it sure seems underhanded and immoral to me.” See id. (emphasis provided).

http://www.courts.phila.gov/pdf/opinions/civiltrial/100102930.pdf