Reputational harm inflicted by false statements demands counsel with the precision to compel correction and the experience to litigate when correction isn’t enough. Sweigart Murdock, LLP brings both.

The firm represents plaintiffs and defendants in defamation and Anti-SLAPP matters in federal and state courts nationwide. Our record includes secured corrections from the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, and numerous other national and regional publications; successful Anti-SLAPP motions on behalf of journalists targeted by politically-motivated litigation; and Anti-SLAPP victories for public officials sued in retaliation for protected speech. We litigate these matters from both sides—and that experience informs every engagement.

Correction, Retraction, and Pre-Litigation Resolution

In defamation matters involving news media, clients most often seek a concrete remedy: a published correction, a retraction, or the removal of false content from circulation. Litigation, while sometimes necessary, is rarely the most efficient path to that result.

Securing a public correction from a major publication requires legal precision, a command of editorial standards and corrections policies, and the capacity to apply sustained, credible pressure. We have obtained that result at the highest levels of American journalism. Where the record can be corrected without litigation, we pursue that course. Where it cannot, we are fully prepared to litigate through discovery, trial, and appeal.

Protecting the Press. Holding the Press Accountable.

Most defamation practices align exclusively with plaintiffs or defendants. Sweigart Murdock does not. We defend journalists and news organizations against meritless claims brought to suppress inconvenient reporting, and we hold publishers accountable when false or reckless coverage causes cognizable harm. That dual capability is not incidental—it is the foundation of our practice.

Our defense work includes representation of reporters targeted by political figures seeking to punish protected coverage, secured through Anti-SLAPP motions resulting in early dismissals and fee awards. Our plaintiff-side work is grounded in the same knowledge of how newsrooms operate, how editorial decisions are made, and where legal and factual vulnerabilities exist.

Having litigated from both sides, we anticipate opposing strategies with precision. We know the arguments the other side will make because we have made them.

Who we represent

The firm's defamation practice serves executives and senior corporate officers facing professionally damaging false statements; public figures and political officials whose reputations have been targeted in the public arena; private individuals subject to inaccurate or harmful lies in the public domain; and media companies and journalists defending against litigation designed to chill protected reporting.

Defamation disputes, whatever the client type, share a common characteristic: the stakes are high, the harm compounds over time, and the margin for strategic error is narrow. We approach each matter with the judgment and commitment that those conditions require.

Anti-SLAPP Litigation

Anti-SLAPP statutes are among the most consequential procedural tools available in defamation litigation. When deployed effectively, they terminate meritless claims at an early stage, shift attorneys’ fees to the party that brought abusive litigation, and establish that the use of legal process as a tool of intimidation carries real consequences.

We have a demonstrated record of Anti-SLAPP success on both sides of the docket: securing dismissals and fee awards for journalists and public officials sued in retaliation for protected expression, and structuring plaintiff-side claims from the outset to withstand Anti-SLAPP scrutiny. In every defamation matter we handle, Anti-SLAPP strategy is integral to case assessment, pleading, and litigation planning.

Digital Defamation and Online Speech

Digital publication has fundamentally altered the defamation landscape. False content that once had a finite reach now persists indefinitely, compounds through search indexing, and propagates across platforms in ways that amplify and extend the original harm.

Our practice encompasses the full range of online defamation challenges: identification of anonymous speakers, Section 230 immunity analysis, review platform disputes, and the pursuit of de-indexing and content removal through both legal process and platform mechanisms. We bring familiarity with the legal frameworks, the platforms, and the practical remedies that produce measurable results—not only in court, but in the digital environments where reputational harm actually occurs.

National Practice. Selective Representation.

The firm handles defamation and Anti-SLAPP matters in federal and state courts across the country. Our clients’ disputes arise in national and regional media, across multiple state jurisdictions, and in digital environments that are inherently without geographic boundary.

We accept a limited number of matters. Defamation litigation demands sustained strategic attention, command of a rapidly evolving legal landscape, and counsel who are directly invested in outcomes. Each client engages with the attorneys responsible for their matter—not with intermediaries. That commitment to focused representation is a deliberate feature of how we practice.

Reputations are built over years and damaged in moments. The firm’s defamation practice is built on the recognition that these matters require not only legal skill, but judgment, discretion, and counsel who understand what is actually at stake.