Two IRS operatives have launched a defamation suit in Washington, D.C., against attorney Abbe Lowell, asserting reputational damage stemming from his conduct.

IRS agents Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler assert that Lowell falsely accused them of illegal activity in their whistleblower allegations against his client, Hunter Biden, as Just the News reports.

The dispute has its roots in comments made by Lowell, Hunter Biden's defense lawyer, who is alleged to have claimed that Shapley and Ziegler breached grand jury secrecy.

These allegations, reportedly directed to several congressional committees, have sparked significant controversy, escalating to a formal legal challenge.

The filing occurred last Friday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, represented by Mitchell Landsberg of Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, and Schreck, argue that Lowell’s claims were not only injurious but blatantly false.

Sparking a Legal Battle from Congressional Claims

The accusations against the IRS agents were potent enough to prompt a defamation lawsuit, underscoring the severity of Lowell's alleged statements.

Lowell reportedly leaked these serious accusations to third parties, including the media, which Shapley and Ziegler claim were attempts to malign their integrity and professional standing.

Landsberg, speaking on behalf of his clients, emphasized the maliciousness of the defamatory statements made by Lowell. The complaint specifically highlights Lowell's influential status as a noted white-collar defense lawyer, arguing that his statements carried damaging weight against the plaintiffs.

The initial whistleblowing by Shapley and Ziegler involved reporting to the House Ways and Means Committee regarding what they perceived as undue leniency shown towards Hunter Biden in a tax probe. This act of whistleblowing is what they claim was met with Lowell's damaging and retaliatory assertions.

Integrity at Stake for Veteran IRS Agents

The reputational damage claimed in the lawsuit is significant, with the plaintiffs seeking a jury trial to address their grievances. They allege that Lowell’s actions reflect not only a personal attack but a professional one, with profound implications for their careers in law enforcement.

In response to the allegations, Shapley and Ziegler have stated through their legal representation that they acted with both integrity and honor in their roles as whistleblowers. Lowell's accusations involved alleged felonies, magnifying the potential harm conveyed through his claims.

The legal stakes are heightened by the sum in controversy, which surpasses $75,000. This figure underlines the severity and depth of the claimed defamation, positioning the lawsuit as a significant legal entanglement for both parties involved.

Legal Reputations and Defamation Dynamics

The narrative within the lawsuit draws attention to Lowell's description of himself as a formidable force in legal defense, suggesting that such a reputation should have precluded the kinds of accusations made against Shapley and Ziegler. This aspect of the complaint intends to illustrate the supposed irony and irresponsibility of Lowell's actions.

The plaintiffs' statement in the lawsuit contends that their careers as dedicated IRS Criminal Investigation agents have been unfairly tarnished. This declaration forms a core component of their claim, as they seek judicial recourse to restore their reputations.

"It is particularly ironic and damaging that a well-known attorney like Lowell -- in his words, 'one of the country’s foremost white-collar defense and trial lawyers' that is 'widely viewed as counsel of choice for individuals facing government investigations and potential indictments' -- has chosen to falsely accuse these special agents of criminal behavior," the lawsuit states.

Seeking Justice and Vindication Through Trial

"Shapley and Ziegler, both experienced and dedicated special agents of IRS Criminal Investigation, bring this action to vindicate their reputations for the incredible and malicious harm they have suffered at the hands of Abbe Lowell," the legal document elaborates. They hope that a jury trial will address their claims, leading to a restoration of their personal and professional standing.

As the legal proceedings progress, the implications for all involved -- particularly regarding professional ethics and the protection of whistleblowers -- remain a focal point.

The outcome of this case may set significant precedents for how retaliatory defamation claims are handled in the context of high-profile legal and political disputes.