In simple terms: no, one can’t say anything they want anytime they want anywhere they want.
At its core, the First Amendment protects speech from government censorship:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The Government cannot make laws to silence its critics. However, private entities can, and DO put limitations on speech and expression. Social media platforms will remove the content and they might even ban the users, if the speech violates their Terms of Service or community standards. An employer can fire a jobholder for expressing opinions they deem offensive, as it happened recently in the case of people offering excuses for political assassinations in this country. The right to speak is neither unlimited nor unrestricted, especially when, due to the type of employment or profession, one happens to occupy “a unique position of trust”, like a public school teacher, for example.
In 2020, the school district fired a public high school teacher for posting inflammatory comments on her personal Facebook page. She appealed the termination to State Board of Education, and also filed a lawsuit against the district on the grounds it violated her First Amendment rights. However, just recently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the school district’s decision to fire her. The Court stated that public employees are subject to certain limitations on their freedom, depending on the employee’s role, particularly when they serve in a role of “trust.”
The profession of an attorney certainly holds a similarly unique position of trust in our society, trust AND power. Attorneys are also expected to “maintain the dignity of the legal system.”
So, what happens when an attorney chooses social media as a venue for the zealous advocacy on behalf of his client, litigates his case and its facts there, and most of all, aggressively vents his criticism towards judges, opposite side’s attorneys, their clients and their witnesses, and even towards the state’s bar association and judicial commission? Worse yet, what if that attorney has built his career and reputation on defending the First Amendment, yet wages a relentless social media war on his and his client’s online critics, case commentators, and digital journalists?…
David S. Gingras, Esq. entered Owens v. Echard case in March of 2024, about eight months after it began. On August 1, 2023 Laura Owens filed a paternity lawsuit against a former reality TV Bachelor, Clayton Echard, claiming he was a father of her unborn twins. The one-night sexual encounter on May 20th, 2023 was followed by the barrage of texts, calls, and emails from Owens (who even drafted a Dating Contract). Clayton had no intention of being in a relationship with her, which incited her to make good on her threats she would make it public, and The Sun published her allegations on September 18, 2023.
Fast forward to June 17, 2024 — the Honorable Julie A. Mata finds in her final order that Owens initiated litigation without basis or merit, provided false testimony, and “altered” medical records. Fast forward once again, to May of 2025 — the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office charges Laura Owens with seven felony counts of perjury, forgery, and fraud, related to a paternity scheme.
And yet, for the past 19 months Mr. Gingras, her attorney, turned her-former-attorney turned her-witness in another case in another state, has been defending Owens’s innocence on social media while ferociously persecuting “dissenters.”
Just in the most recent instances, within the span of a week, Mr. Gingras published a Youtube video where his analysis of a motion (filed by Owens’s court opponent) was punctuated with camera close-ups of bullets, and posted a slew of inflammatory comments on his new Bluesky account. There, he called a YouTube creator “a psychopath”, and made references to killing, s. assault, and violence while mentioning a podcaster’s family members. Another comment presented a hypothetical gun violence scenario involving family members of Owens’s opposing counsel. Mr. Gingras also unleashed on the opposing counsel’s grammar, law knowledge, legal expertise, and professional experience. Oh, and he also compared Judge Mata to Nazis.
It wasn’t the first time Hon. Julie Mata became the target of Mr. Gingras’s scathing public criticism. After she denied some of his motions and ruled against Laura Owens, his client, Mr. Gingras published the December 16, 2024 Blog, titled “Public Warning — Judge Julie A. Mata”, where he offered a free consultation to help with re-assigning a case to a different judge. After his complaint about the Judge to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Misconduct was dismissed (with conclusion: “there was not clear and convincing evidence of ethical misconduct in this matter”), Mr. Gingras linked a news clip criticizing the Commission for its handling of the scandalous Arizona Judge Erin Otis. In his 3/29/25 Blog, Mr. Gingras announced that he was “looking at the option of taking legal action to force” the Commission to disclose Mata’s response to his complaint. It is unknown whether he followed up.
There were many other times when Mr. Gingras expressed his negative opinion about Judge Mata’s competence:
“Yup — after the case is remanded for further proceedings, Judge Mata will be removed from the case.” (Blog, 6/19/24) She wasn’t.
“Judge Mata has only been a judge for a few years, and so far, her track record is…..ummm…..not good. (…) There is other anecdotal evidence to suggest Judge Mata has a history of doing things which would normally result in a mistrial in any normal civil context.” (Blog, 6/19/24)
“All you have is ONE decision from ONE judge who appears to have made up her mind six months ago….and that same judge has recently been reversed by the Court of Appeals, so who knows….that may just happen again.” (Blog, 6/19/24) It didn’t. [re ruling in Owens v. Echard]
“it [the Opening Brief for the Court of Appeals] will explain, in detail, what mistakes Laura feels Judge Mata made. And BOY are there a lot." (Blog, 10/17/24)
“Frankly, I don’t care how much or how little time Gregg [Woodnick, the opposing counsel in Owens v. Echard] needs to work on his brief, because Mata’s errors are so blatant, no amount of additional time is going to help Gregg explain them away.” (Blog, 10/17/24)
“Judge Mata shared information about the case with him [her father], including a suggesting she was going to make adverse rulings BEFORE the trial began. Folks, if that story is true (and at the moment, we cannot confirm it either way), that would be one of the most outrageous acts of judicial misconduct imaginable." (Blog, 6/19/24) It wasn’t.
Clayton Echard was represented by the law firm Woodnick Law, PLLC and neither Mr. Gregg Woodnick, the managing attorney, nor the members of his staff or the client, were safe from Mr. Gingras’s criticism during pending litigation. The public lashing ranged from accusations of “lying” to name calling:
“silly motion”, “bullshit sanction motion”, “fatally defective”, a “BIG mistake”, “a first year law student can tell you what that mistake means, I explained to him that was incredibly dumb, Clayton screwed up” [re: Clayton and Woodnick’s motion for Rule26 sanctions] (Blog 2, 4/3/24)
“it looks like Clayton doesn’t give a damn about following any rules and he doesn’t care what the law says…he just wants JUSTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” (Blog, 5/23/24)
“I also don’t think today was the cakewalk Clayton expected. When the trial ended, Clayton sat at his table looking like he was about to cry” (Blog, 6/10/24)
“I want to do everything I can to help bring the truth to light, even if (and especially because) there are people like Deandra [Arena, attorney, Woodnick Law] and Gregg [Woodnick, attorney, Woodnick Law] out there trying to do the exact opposite.” (Blog, 6/10/24)
“I get that for people like Clayton, and maybe a few others, fame is something you are desperate for.” (Blog, 9/18/25)
“there are ethical rules for lawyers that say it’s unprofessional to intentionally screw opposing counsel with deadlines (a rule Woodnick hasn’t exactly embraced, among others). But I’m not Woodnick. I am a nice enough person” (Blog, 10/17/24)
In another case filed by Laura Owens in California on July 9 (2025) against Mike Marraccini, Mr. Gingras wrote a supporting affidavit, represented Owens during the initial appearance on August 15, and was listed as a witness. Different case, different state, different Respondent with a different attorney (Omar Serrato, Esq.), yet the pattern of insults towards Laura Owens’s opponents has continued:
“Omar’s [Serrato] PACER case-count = ZERO. NONE. The guy has never set foot in federal court. But don’t take my word for it — look it up yourself.” (in a comment under his Blog, 9/16/25)
“The person who filed the motion in question is not a serious person, and has accomplished (as far as I can tell), nothing of any significance in his life. The dude is not someone worthy of my time or attention….unless he picks a fight.” [about Omar Serrato] (Blog, 9/18/25)
The litigation of cases on the Internet has not been limited to ‘fighting words’; Mr. Gingras, prior to June 10, 2024 Evidentiary Hearing in Owens v. Echard, publicized: video clips of Clayton Echard’s deposition; the report of Dr. Dean’s (an expert witness in Owens v. Echard); and voice messages the mother of Mike Marraccini (a subpoenaed witness in Owens v. Echard) left for Owens several years earlier. Besides belittling Mike Marraccini in his blog (“Maybe he has memory or mental issues” — Blog, 5/02/24), he also tried to get him arrested right at the June 10 hearing.
* * *
When Laura Owens reached out with her narrative about pregnancy by the Bachelor (the narrative deemed false by the court a year later) to several publications back in 2023, she probably did not foresee the intensity of social media scrutiny that would follow. Scrutiny that she herself fueled by further submissions to various social media platforms. When David Gingras Esq. entered the case in March of 2024, he began what I would describe as ‘a PR crisis management campaign’ on behalf of Owens. He waged the war on YouTube content creators, Redditors, and X users. Even Discord members weren’t safe: the screenshots of comments in one of the podcasters’ server were either published in Mr. Gingras’s Law Firm blogs and X posts, or included in his court motions. He would label thousands of case followers from all over the English-speaking world — a cult. And he had some choice words about “cult members”:
“Oh, and for some of you special ed folks out there (…)
“These people (not naming names) are generally blogging or hosting YouTube videos every day to talk about the case…They are nothing but mosquitoes, sucking their meager livings out of the First Amendment I’ve fought so hard to protect. These human leeches. FUCK THESE SICK, SELFISH, LYING ASSHOLES.” [Emphasis his]
“These (sic) vile scum, I mean people (…) They are human cockroaches spreading feces on the floor and then spinning the facts to make them more dramatic than they really are in the hopes this will drive traffic and increase revenue for their sad, pathetic lives. One day, these trash humans will wake up and realize that lying for money is not a good way to live. Or maybe they will never see their sins. Either way, I look forward to reading their obituaries, briefly, before throwing them in the trash where they belong.” (blog, 4/3/24–2)
Public online discourse regarding Owens’s cases has been centered around, but it’s not limited to, one X account, two Instagram accounts, and a Reddit community, which in the early days of Owens v. Echard adopted the name or some version of the name, “Justice for Clayton”, JFC for short. In its creation, people behind the forums responded to growing public outrage at Owens’s claims and medical ‘records’ she would present online, none of which were passing a basic common-sense test.
Dave Neal and Reality Steve, the podcasters, had covered the Bachelor Nation (community around The Bachelor Franchise) topics extensively, and were among the first on YouTube to start reporting in detail on Owens’s public accusations against Echard, the court proceedings, and public’s rising questions (YouTube channels @DaveNealComedian and @RealitySteve24, respectively). Other YouTube channels (@LethalLauren904, @MeganFoxWriter, @SchnitzelNinja69, @AlltheBestResearch, and many others, too many to list them all) also provided case commentary and discussed publicly available court documents; requested, obtained, and published court hearings and police body camera footage; and uncovered Owens’s forgeries in documents she, herself, had send them. Their coverage became the target of Laura Owens’s attorney: he claimed he wanted to correct their “lies” but it looked more like attempts to quiet their voices.
From YouTube channel of Dave Neal @DaveNealComedian
The arsenal the attorney David Gingras employed in his attempts to change public opinion or rather, as many worried, chill the speech, included threats of million-dollar defamations lawsuits. They were expressed both in private emails to content creators (for example, to Dave Neal) and in his Law Firm blog:
“Having done this myself many times, I can tell you — if Laura sues the JFC crew for defamation, it would be an absolute bloodbath (to use the metaphorical term like Trump did, not literally). Unless folks like Dave Neal have a really, really, really, really, really, really good explanation for EVERY defamatory thing they have said about Laura, my prediction is that by this time next year, Laura’s horses will be enjoying some new grazing land out in Tennessee, once the Neal family has been evicted from their home after losing a multimillion defamation case in federal court.” (blog, 4/19/24, in an archived version before author’s edits, included in Bar complaint SBA File №24–1199)
There were words, but there were also actions. Mr. Gingras submitted several take-down requests and Copyright claims to YouTube: for reading a public and docketed court filing (YouTube channel @SchnitzelNinja69); for the YouTube video thumbnail using a gym selfie Mr. Gingras had posted on his public X account (YouTube channel @LoudLilDucky); for commentary on his YouTube stream (YouTube channel The Court of Random Opinion @LethalLauren904) although playing short clips of Mr. Gingras’s YouTube video as a springboard for panel discussion did seem to follow Fair Use guidelines. But wait, there is more…
When some of the content creators submitted complaints to Arizona Bar Association, he included a document related to one of the complaints in his Law Firm blog. He did not redact it: the document showed (and still does) the name and address of the complainant, effectively doxing their real-life identity behind their YouTube handle. When an anonymous Reddit account summarized and reviewed David Gingras’s YouTube video, he subpoenaed Reddit for the identity behind the account: their full name, email address, other contact information Reddit might had, and IP address logs for any logins in the preceding 3 months (the subpoena was unsuccessful).
* * *
If it feels like a lot for one attorney and one client over only 19 months, it’s probably because it is. Does it rise to levels of harassment, defamation, or intimidation? I don’t know but the volume of complaints to Arizona Bar Association is an indication that numerous members of the public, as well as a Judge, a subpoenaed witness, and an expert witness, have been concerned about Mr. Gingras’s actions as, possibly, violating the rules of ethical conduct expected of an attorney. There have also been at least three YouTube videos published by Mr. Gingras, in which he mentions or displays firearms or bullets. Although there are no outright threats, the context — discussing opposite side’s attorneys and their motions in cases involving Laura Owens — appears oddly inappropriate. So, is the Arizona Bar concerned? If they are, it’s not public. And if they decide to respond to my request for comment, I will certainly update this article.
For now, his latest blog, The Arizona Bar’s Odd (& Incorrect) Obsession With (sic) ER 1.6(dated October 15 and published on October 31) begins with, “I am currently fighting with the State Bar of Arizona over certain ethical rules”, and challenges the Bar’s position on one of the rules of professional conduct that lawyers are required to follow. Although Mr. Gingras declares, “This post is about a rule that is NOT part of that dispute” and is “not intended to preview arguments I’m planning to make with the bar judge”, the rule he discusses IS the restriction on attorneys’ free speech and thus appears related. The conflict between one of the first sentences of Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct,
“Whether or not engaging in the practice of law, lawyers should conduct themselves honorably“,
and Mr. Gingras’s asserted rights under the 1st Amendment is, after all, at the core of many Bar complaints against him.
He also announces (which, interestingly, is also an admission), “Not lurking in Discord (for now).” However, just a few lines below, he publishes a photo-meme. Two things are striking about it: in all likelihood, the meme came from the said Discord; and the meme also appears to make fun of his former-client, Laura Owens. The same Laura Owens whose claims of online harassment (including memes like this) he’s been faithfully defending for over a year and a half.
UPDATE: At the time of this publication, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell has announced the indictment of Laura Michelle Owens on additional felony charges related to a false claim of pregnancy involving a second victim and alleged crimes committed in 2021, totaling 14 indictments.
Additional charges include another count of Perjury; two counts of Taking the Identity of Another, two counts of Forgery, and one count of Theft by Extort-Accuse of Crime.
“These charges are in addition to those involving victim Clayton Echard. Trial in the Echard case is set for January 2026.”
DISCLAIMER: The above article about two public figures expresses author’s views and opinions based on published and/or publicly available materials and court documents.
Laura M. Owens hosts a podcast featured on iTunes, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts. She’s also a speaker in the TEDx episode published on the TEDx YouTube channel and on the TED.com website.
Her case has been featured on Inside Edition and Law&Crime Network.
David S. Gingras, Esq. was a guest on Dr. Phil Show (S9 E52, “Dirt, Lies, and The Internet”), aired on November 23, 2010). David Gingras’s tips for protecting one’s reputation on the Internet have been published on Dr. Phil’s website on May 25, 2023.
.jpeg)
Comments
Post a Comment