When a statement becomes a legal dispute
The issue may arise from an interview, a social media post, a business disagreement or the public discussion of a personal experience. Before responding to a demand or lawsuit, it is important to identify the precise statement, the full surrounding exchange and the relief the other party seeks.
The label placed on a claim does not answer every constitutional question. A careful analysis considers both the elements of the asserted claim and the protections that may apply to the speech.
Privacy and defamation raise different questions
A defamation claim generally concerns allegedly false statements that harm reputation. A privacy claim can raise different issues, including a dispute over disclosure of information asserted to be private. The analysis depends on the particular cause of action, the governing law and the facts; truth alone does not resolve every kind of privacy claim.
We assess the content, audience, context, available evidence and applicable defenses before recommending a response. Where relevant, that includes reviewing whether a statute addressing lawsuits over public participation applies in the particular court and circumstances.
A litigation approach grounded in the record
Matthew’s work in commercial and financial disputes involves evaluating documents, reconstructing events and testing legal theories. In speech and privacy matters, that same discipline begins with the original recording, complete publication, communications and procedural record.
Potential next steps may include responding to a demand, evaluating an early motion or preparing to litigate disputed facts. The appropriate course depends on the claim and the client’s objectives.
A dismissal secured for Haley Kalil
MJB Law secured dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Haley Kalil in Kalil v. Kalil, a landmark Minnesota privacy and social-media case. Matthew Bialick and Karl Johnson represented Haley; Matthew’s work included briefing and oral argument on the defense motion.
On September 17, 2026, the federal court held that Haley’s remarks concerned a matter of legitimate public concern under Minnesota law. It dismissed both the privacy and unjust-enrichment claims on the merits. The court expressly did not reach the separate First Amendment argument. Read the decision and case summary.
Before you respond or publish again
Preserve the original material and the context around it. Avoid editing or deleting potentially relevant records while you seek advice. A new public response can create additional facts and legal issues, so have the proposed response reviewed where possible.
Discuss a speech or privacy matter
Contact Matthew with the names of the parties, a brief description of the issue and any pending deadline. The firm will assess the subject matter, jurisdiction and conflicts before agreeing to a representation.