California Defamation Law Blog : California Defamation Lawyer & Attorney : Adrianos Facchetti Law Firm : Los Angeles CA : Defamation Law Blog

Continuing in our series on defamation defenses, today we're going to cover the defense of statements made in a judicial proceeding, also known as the litigation privilege.

A publication made in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding is absolutely privileged.  Civil Code § 47(b). This means that  you cannot prevail in a libel or slander case if the statements are privileged. In other words, the law allows people to make certain statements in certain settings, e.g., in a judicial proceeding.

The following requirements are necessary to meet the litigation privilege:

1. the communication must be made in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding;
2. by litigants or other participants authorized by law;
3. to achieve the objects of the litigation; and
4. the communication has some connection or logical relation to the action.

Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205, 212.

The primary purpose of the litigation privilege is to allow litigants and witnesses the freedom to use the courts without being worried that they'll be harassed by subsequent lawsuits. The litigation also promotes a more effective judicial system because it allows lawyers to vigorously advance their client's interests.

In short, the litigation privilege is one of the most powerful defamation defenses. It is also one of the more complicated defenses.

If you liked this post please subscribe to the California Defamation Law Newsletter to receive a FREE copy of the "The Ultimate Beginner's Guide To Defamation Law."

Related Posts:

What Are the Defenses To A Claim For Defamation?

Truth Is A Defense To A Claim Of Defamation

Defamation Defense: Discharge of Official Duty

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Second District of the California Court of Appeals published two cases involving defamation in the span of one week.  The first case involved the Staples Center Owners and this next case deals with a little known issue--the litigation privilege.

The Appellants were defendants in an earlier case where the plaintiffs offered to dismiss one of the defendants on certain conditions.  The plaintiffs in that case sent a settlement letter to the defendants, which the defendants contended was unethical because it sought to create a conflict of interest so that defendant's attorney, in effect, would not able to represent any of the defendants. The defendants sued the plaintiffs for intentional interference with contractual relations and negligence.

The plaintiffs filed an anti-SLAPP motion and they prevailed because the court held that the litigation privilege applied to the settlement letter.

The decision was appealed and was then affirmed.

While this decision is not surprising since a purpose of the litigation privilege is to "promote[] the effectiveness of judicial proceedings by encouraging attorneys to zealously protect their clients' interests," what is interesting is how the court compared the privilege to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In short, the court said that the litigation privilege trumps the Rules of Professional Conduct.  This is a powerful statement!

It underscores the importance the court of appeal places on the litigation privilege.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many people believe that defamation of character litigation is out of control. They go on and on about how rising costs are encouraging defendants to settle "frivolous" cases and "abusive" discovery procedures are chilling free speech. But they don't really offer any solutions to this so-called problem.  Instead, they just talk, talk, and talk, and it's really getting old.

The real problem here is the delusion that Internet speech deserves greater protections than speech made in other places.  It shouldn't.  And I predict that courts will begin to see the error of their ways in the near future.

What do you think?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link