Green Acres Trust v. London
141 Ariz. 609, 688 P.2d 617 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's absolute privilege for defamatory statements made in connection with a judicial proceeding does not extend to communications with the news media, as the media generally lacks the necessary relationship to the proceeding for the privilege to attach.
Facts:
- Attorneys Michael Valder, Harry Craig, David Rich, and Douglas Martin met on March 5, 1976, to review a draft of a class action complaint they were preparing to file against Green Acres Trust.
- One of the attorneys invited Edythe Jensen, a reporter for the Phoenix Gazette, to their law offices to learn about the case.
- During this meeting, the attorneys provided Ms. Jensen with a copy of the unfiled, draft complaint.
- The attorneys also spoke with Ms. Jensen, stating that Green Acres had 'bilked' thousands of people, deliberately violated state laws, was under criminal investigation for fraud, and had 'intentionally inflicted emotional distress on its victims.'
- On March 8, 1976, the Phoenix Gazette published an article written by Ms. Jensen that included these allegations.
- Later that same day, the attorneys officially filed the class action complaint against Green Acres.
Procedural Posture:
- Green Acres Trust sued the lawyer defendants (Valder, Craig, Rich, and Martin) and their clients for defamation in the state trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, dismissing the case.
- Green Acres, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the lawyers' communications were protected by both absolute and qualified privileges.
- Green Acres, as petitioner, sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision from the Arizona Supreme Court.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to resolve the issue of attorney privilege in communications about litigation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's absolute or qualified privilege for statements made in connection with a judicial proceeding extend to allegedly defamatory statements made to a newspaper reporter during a press conference held before a complaint has been filed?
Opinions:
Majority - Holohan, C.J.
No, neither an absolute nor a qualified privilege protects an attorney's allegedly defamatory statements made to a newspaper reporter in this context. For the absolute privilege to apply to an extra-judicial communication, both the content and the occasion must have 'some relation to the proceeding.' While the statements' content was related to the proposed litigation, the occasion—a press conference with a reporter—was not. The recipient of the communication must have a relationship to the judicial proceeding, and a newspaper reporter, acting as an observer rather than a participant, lacks the sufficient connection required to trigger the privilege. The salutary policy of ensuring zealous representation within a judicial proceeding does not extend to the dissemination of defamatory accusations to the media. Likewise, no qualified privilege applies because the attorneys' conduct violated ethical rules against extra-judicial statements likely to interfere with a fair trial, and no recognized 'common interest' exists between attorneys and the media that would justify such a privilege.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of the judicial proceedings privilege for attorneys in Arizona. By establishing that the privilege depends not only on the content of a communication but also on the recipient's relationship to the litigation, the court curtailed the use of the privilege as a shield for litigating cases in the press. The ruling places a clear boundary on extra-judicial statements, forcing attorneys to risk defamation liability if they choose to engage the media. This holding reinforces professional ethics rules concerning pre-trial publicity and serves as a strong deterrent against using the press to damage an opponent's reputation before litigation has formally commenced.
Unlock the full brief for Green Acres Trust v. London