Mealdred Okwo claims I “misquoted” her and I should “report accurately” in reference to my initial article on this topic. She said I should have clicked the “view conversation” button to see the thread of the conversations quoted.
The original screen captured tweet I shared is below. The tweets as captured are directly from Mealdred. The subsequent “expanded tweets” showing the thread of conversation are also below. Note, they all originate from her and nothing has changed the wording of her threat about taking IROKO TV to the cleaners, even in the expanded view, my core and only point in my initial writeup.
There is a discussion with @seuncr8vox person on a different topic about films in Ghana. You can see that in the subsequent screen captured “view conversation” tweet below.
I can see where Mealdred is coming from which is that the part “I don’t just yak” could be attributed to being part of the IROKO TV conversation. I suppose I could have cropped that top part out even though I was unequivocally clear about my issue i.e. her threat to take IROKO TV to “the cleaners.”
However, I remain unequivocally clear and focused on the issue here for me.
Issue: Is it appropriate conduct for an attorney to get on social media and threaten to take an opposing party/competitor “to the cleaners,” for alleged wrongdoing towards the attorney or his/her client?
My answer is “no.” I happen to believe that Mealdred, as a licensed California attorney that she is, threatening to take a company she alleges has infringed on the intellectual property works of others ( or even herself) “to the cleaners” on social media is inappropriate.
Is her saying she will take IROKO TV “to the cleaners” supposed to scare Iroko? Why should they or anyone else even take her seriously? Attorneys, especially trial lawyers bite hard (through actions). Getting on social media to go off on someone based on allegations that may or may not be true, especially as to “marketer(s)” and reported statements by a third party referenced is, to me, in appropriate.
Notice this is my view. I always wonder when people say “that is your opinion” etc as Mealdred reminds me in her tweets to me on this issue on twitter, why the necessity to state the obvious. Who else’s opinion do they think it is? Of course it is my opinion and I do not, barring facts that call for a contrary conclusion, back down when I take a stance or position, regardless of what the repercussions may be. I know this is not new to those on and offline who know me or follow my work.
Mealdred, you don’t have to agree with my “interpretation.” In fact, I would have been surprised if you did. Since when did lawyers, especially trial lawyers, start agreeing on an issue? We can agree to disagree. I just, needless to say, reserve the right to discuss such actions on AML if I deem it relevant to my audience. In this instance I do. Anything with IROKO on it is always relevant to my audience. Lol!
Follow short discussion on @mealdredo or @uduaklaw