Christopher Ingle got his undergraduate degree from ASU. He soon realized, however, that Arizona Law was the place to get his law degree. "I can only ask my U of A colleagues," Christopher stated, "to recognize that I was young and came to see the error of my ways."

Christopher chose Arizona Law because of a generous scholarship offer, but says that, "Scholarship aside, going to the U of A was the best value for the money. I was able to earn my degree at a Tier 1 law school -- among the best public law schools in the country -- without going into an unmanageable amount of debt."

He got far more than a great legal education; he met his wife, Georgie, during his second year. And he took advantage of being at a great research university--Georgie was a doctoral student in Rhetoric, Composition, and the Teaching of English. After Christopher graduated in 2007 he was offered a job with Gust Rosenfeld PLC, while his wife still had one year left before earning her PhD. "For an entire year either she would drive up to Phoenix or I would drive down to Tucson for the weekend."

At Gust Rosenfeld, Christopher worked in the litigation and bankruptcy practice groups, where he represented a wide range of clients. His practice focused on commercial litigation, construction law, intellectual property, and creditor's rights.

Two and a half years ago, he left Gust Rosenfeld to create his own firm with fellow Arizona Law alum, Logan Elia. Ingle Elia PLLC specializes in commercial litigation, intellectual property, bankruptcy, and "basically a lot of stuff involving the internet." This so-called "internet stuff" has proven to be their fastest-growing and most sought-after area of practice. With individual and corporate clients from around the world, they have developed a niche practice in online copyright and trademark infringement suits, cybersquatting/cyberpiracy cases, and online defamation cases. Christopher has been thrilled to hear about the intellectual property program at Arizona Law.

Christopher is currently working on an important First Amendment case involving some unsettled areas of internet law.  Specifically, the case centers around an Australian man who is upset at what he claimed were false comments posted by his ex-wife a particular website to destroy both his business and personal reputation.   

Christopher explains that  

"despite the fact that the website knows the comments to be false and extremely harmful, it refuses to remove them. Under the Communications Decency Act the website cannot be forced to remove the material, so my client decided to fight back by organizing a high profile boycott of all of the website's customers. Customers and advertisers fled, causing the website to seek emergency injunctive relief for intentional interference with contract.  The defendant admitted that he was intentionally interfering with the website's contracts and absolutely intended to harm the website, but he maintained that his conduct could not be enjoined because everything he said was either true, opinion, or hyperbole.  He pointed out that all he really wanted was for the website to take down the lies his ex-wife published about him.

The court ultimately denied the injunction.  The court recognized that even though the defendant was intentionally causing the website to suffer irreparable harm, his conduct was nonetheless protected by the First Amendment. Christopher comments:

"The decision is important because it helps define the limits of what language a person can use online without crossing the line into some sort of actionable conduct like defamation or wrongful interference.  It also tends to show the need for some sort of legal mechanism to remove false and damaging information from the internet; perhaps something similar to California's new law for so-called "revenge" images.  Not everyone has the time and energy necessary to organize a successful boycott."

"The neat thing about this case is that I had heard about my client two years ago when I read an article about him in the newspaper.  I knew he lived in Australia, so I was somewhat surprised when he contacted me to represent him.  He said he had asked a few people in the online defamation industry for recommendations and several different people had independently recommended my firm.  I never thought we would have clients seeking us out from halfway across the world specifically because of our track record with these internet cases."