Arneja v. Gildar
541 A.2d 621, 1988 D.C. App. LEXIS 85, 1988 WL 57368 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney is protected by an absolute privilege from defamation liability for statements made during or preliminary to a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, provided the statements bear some relation to the proceeding, which is construed very liberally.
Facts:
- Appellant and Appellee were attorneys representing opposing parties in a landlord-tenant dispute.
- Appellant, representing the tenants, filed a petition with the District of Columbia Rental Accommodations Office challenging a rent control exemption.
- Both attorneys and their clients were present in a hearing room at the Rental Accommodations Office, awaiting the imminent arrival of the hearing examiner to adjudicate the dispute.
- Before the hearing examiner arrived, Appellee made unsolicited remarks to Appellant.
- The remarks included: 'You’re unnecessarily pursuing this case. You don’t understand the law. Where did you go to law school; you should go back to law school before you practice law... You better learn your English, go to elementary school.'
- Appellant, who was born in India and is a member of the Sikh religion, believed these were ad hominem attacks on his ethnicity and background.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant filed a slander action against Appellee in the trial court.
- Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the statements were protected by absolute privilege.
- The trial court granted Appellee's motion for summary judgment.
- Appellant, the plaintiff from the trial court, appealed the trial court's order to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do an attorney's disparaging remarks about opposing counsel's legal and language abilities, made in a hearing room while awaiting a quasi-judicial proceeding to begin, fall under the absolute privilege for statements related to a judicial proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Gallagher, Senior Judge
Yes. The attorney's remarks fall under the absolute privilege because they were made preliminary to a quasi-judicial proceeding and were sufficiently related to it. The privilege affords an attorney absolute immunity from actions in defamation for communications related to judicial proceedings to allow for zealous representation. The court found that the administrative hearing at the Rental Accommodations Office qualified as a quasi-judicial proceeding. The statements were made 'preliminary to' the proceeding because the parties were physically present in the hearing room awaiting its imminent commencement. Finally, the court found the statements were related to the proceeding, construing the standard for relevance very liberally; since the case involved statutory interpretation, remarks about understanding the law and English were deemed to have a sufficient connection. The motive of the speaker is irrelevant when applying absolute privilege.
Dissenting - Pryor, Chief Judge
No. A factual question exists as to whether the statements were part of a preliminary conference or were simply unilateral verbal abuse, which should not be protected by absolute privilege. The dissent argues that it is a question of fact whether a conference or discussion actually took place, or if one attorney was simply abusing the other. Without resolving this factual issue, it is questionable whether such conduct should be protected by the privilege, as it is difficult to distinguish from unprotected statements made in a courthouse hallway. The case should be remanded to resolve this factual question.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the application of the absolute privilege for attorneys' statements in the context of quasi-judicial administrative hearings. It establishes that the privilege's temporal and physical scope can include the moments immediately preceding a hearing, within the designated hearing room. By applying an extremely liberal standard of relevance, the court protects even personally insulting remarks, prioritizing the policy of zealous advocacy over concerns about attorney civility in litigation. The ruling solidifies the principle that an attorney's recourse for such unprofessional conduct is not a defamation lawsuit, but rather a complaint to the bar's disciplinary committee.
