Opinion ID: 3011783
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: On August 13, 1997, in an interview with

Text: Philadelphia Weekly, Mr. Angino had a similar opportunity to clearly state for the public r ecord _________________________________________________________________ 7. The complaint in Tucker II is itself a confusing farrago of missteps and errors. Appellants' attorney never discussed the loss of consortium claim with the Tuckers. (App. 518). The complaint was drafted by a law student. It misrepresented one song by taking snippets of words from actual lyrics, words that are separated by many, many verses and run[ning] them together as if they are a continuous statement, creating what appellants' attorney now admits was a gross and deliberate misrepresentation. (App. 534). The appellant's attorney neither listened to nor read the lyrics of the song that he alleges was defamatory. He never conducted a fact check of any of the critical allegations in the complaint. Indeed, he did not even sign it, nor is it clear from the record that he even read the final draft. His wife (who is not an attorney) signed it for him. 21 that the Tuckers were foregoing any claims stemming from interference with sexual relations. However, Mr. Angino failed to do so. Instead, he stated that loss of consortium is a standar d addition to lawsuits of this type and refers to all aspects of the marital relationship, not necessarily sex. (App. 2148-49) (my emphasis).