Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)

Citation: Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)
Parent Document: Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2022-03-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10278647/dorfman-v-smith/ ↗

Full Text

2,580 chars

only claim to have survived the motion to dismiss, the
trial court determined that the withdrawal of these alle-
gations effectively withdrew this theory of liability.
Accordingly, the court rendered judgment in favor of
the defendant on all of the plaintiff’s extracontractual
claims. The plaintiff then appealed to the Appellate
Court. The appeal was then transferred to this court
pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice
Book § 65-1.
I
Before addressing the applicability of the litigation
privilege, ‘‘[w]e begin our analysis with a review of [this]
doctrine . . . as set forth in Simms v. Seaman, 308
Conn. 523, 531–40, 69 A.3d 880 (2013). In Simms, we
noted that the doctrine of absolute immunity originated
in response to the need to bar persons accused of crimes
from suing their accusers for defamation. . . . The
doctrine then developed to encompass and bar defama-
tion claims against all participants in judicial proceed-
ings, including judges, attorneys, parties, and
witnesses. . . . We further noted that, [l]ike other
jurisdictions, Connecticut has long recognized the liti-
gation privilege, and that [t]he general rule is that
defamatory words spoken upon an occasion absolutely
privileged, though spoken falsely, knowingly, and with
express malice, impose no liability for damages recover-
able in an action in slander . . . .’’ (Citations omitted;
emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.)
MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 310 Conn. 616, 627, 79
A.3d 60 (2013).
Recently, in Scholz v. Epstein, 341 Conn. 1, 10, 266
A.3d 127 (2021), we recognized the policy rationales
underlying this privilege.2 Although we articulated these
2
In Scholz, we explained that ‘‘[t]hree rationales have been articulated in
support of the absolute privilege. [Simms v. Seaman, supra, 308 Conn.] 535.
The most important is that the privilege protects the rights of clients who
should not be imperiled by subjecting their legal advisors to the constant
fear of lawsuits arising out of their conduct in the course of legal representa-
March 29, 2022 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 55

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text