Why can’t they just say the client’s name and say that he is seeking a permanent injunction about serious allegations being made against him? Without saying what they are.
Because that would create a wildfire of speculation, straight up falsities, half-truths & intential lies which could be far worse than the truth. Although the reasoning sounds BS (the article cites options to protect the accused during reporting) and a permanent ban on reporting whatever this is would be wrong in principal, reporting does need to be responsibly handled.
Why can’t they just say the client’s name and say that he is seeking a permanent injunction about serious allegations being made against him? Without saying what they are.
Because that would create a wildfire of speculation, straight up falsities, half-truths & intential lies which could be far worse than the truth. Although the reasoning sounds BS (the article cites options to protect the accused during reporting) and a permanent ban on reporting whatever this is would be wrong in principal, reporting does need to be responsibly handled.