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

2,762 chars

rationales in relation to a claim brought against an attor-
         ney for communications made during a judicial pro-
         ceeding, we also have relied on these rationales to apply
         immunity to claims brought against party opponents
         and witnesses: ‘‘[T]he purpose of affording absolute
         immunity to those who provide information in connec-
         tion with judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is that
         in certain situations the public interest in having people
         speak freely outweighs the risk that individuals will
         occasionally abuse the privilege by making false and
         malicious statements. . . . [T]he possibility of incur-
         ring the costs and inconvenience associated with defend-
         ing a [retaliatory] suit might well deter a citizen with
         a legitimate grievance from filing a complaint. . . . Put
         simply, absolute immunity furthers the public policy of
         encouraging participation and candor in judicial and
         quasi-judicial proceedings. This objective would be
         thwarted if those persons whom the common-law doc-
         trine [of absolute immunity] was intended to protect
         nevertheless faced the threat of suit. In this regard, the
         purpose of the absolute immunity afforded participants
         in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is the same
         as the purpose of the sovereign immunity enjoyed by the
         state. . . . As a result, courts have recognized absolute
         immunity as a defense in certain retaliatory civil actions
         in order to remove this disincentive and thus encourage
         citizens to come forward with complaints or to testify.’’
         (Internal quotation marks omitted.) MacDermid, Inc.
         v. Leonetti, supra, 310 Conn. 627–28.
         tion. . . . Id. [Second, by] affording absolute immunity to those who provide
         information in connection with judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings [we
         have recognized] that in certain situations the public interest in having
         people speak freely outweighs the risk that individuals will occasionally
         abuse the privilege by making false and malicious statements. . . . Id.,
         539. Additionally, the privilege protects access to the courts inasmuch as
         retaliatory lawsuits [that might] cause the removal of [an] adversary’s coun-
         sel would compromise the judicial process, and there exist other remedies,
         such as the court’s contempt powers . . . . Id., 535–36.’’ (Internal quotation
         marks omitted.) Scholz v. Epstein, supra, 341 Conn. 10.
Page 56                       CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                          March 29, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text