In Hughes v. Hughes, film makers Albert and Allen Hughes were sued by their father, Albert Sr., for stating that their "dad's a pimp." The comment was made during an interview, conducted by the elegant Veronica Webb, that was later published in Vanity Fair.

Father Hughes' defamation claim was based on the fact that, although he WAS formerly a pimp from 1978-1981, he no longer "dabbled in the pimptorial arts." Thus, the defense of truth should not be available to the twin brothers. Instead, the pleadings alleged that the remark was a "nasty, tasteless lie" made by the Hughes brothers to promote their then-new movie American Pimp.

The Second California Appellate district in L.A. disagreed with the mack daddy, and affirmed the jury verdict in favor of the film makers, reasoning: "The communication “[o]ur dad’s a pimp” could reasonably be understood as meaning that he had at one time engaged in that activity. And a fact finder could reasonably conclude that the “gist or sting” of the remark does not necessarily depend on when the plaintiff was a pimp."

Post Script: For those of us laboring in clinical regions of the legal profession, pimpin' possesses a certain renegade charm. The Hughes case magnifies this allure by combining pimps with celebrities. Like a tell-all talk show, it irresistibly descends into celebrity dirt in its talk of sordid deposition excerpts and lengthy discussion of Guccione v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.