Scholz v. Epstein, 341 Conn. 1 (2021)

Citation: Scholz v. Epstein, 341 Conn. 1 (2021)
Parent Document: Scholz v. Epstein, 341 Conn. 1 (2021)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2021-09-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6244827/scholz-v-epstein/ ↗

Full Text

2,391 chars

Hospital, 272 Conn. 776, 787, 865 A.2d 1163 (2005) (like
         colorable claim of sovereign immunity, to protect
         against threat of suit, colorable claim of absolute immu-
         nity based on participation in judicial and quasi-judicial
         proceedings gives rise to immediately appealable final
         judgment). Whether absolute immunity applies to the
         cause of action at issue is a question of law subject to
         de novo review. See, e.g., Simms v. Seaman, supra, 308
         Conn. 530.
                                       I
            We begin with an overview of our case law regarding
         absolute immunity and, specifically, its application to
         attorney conduct. For more than one century, this court
         has held that, under the litigation privilege, ‘‘[a]n attor-
         ney at law is absolutely privileged to publish defamatory
         matter concerning another in communications prelimi-
         nary to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the institu-
         tion of, or during the course and as a part of, a judicial
         proceeding in which he participates as counsel, if it has
         some relation to the proceeding.’’ (Footnotes omitted;
         internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 535. In Simms,
         this court addressed in great detail the issue of whether
         absolute immunity extends beyond defamation claims
         for an attorney’s conduct during judicial proceedings.
         In that case, the plaintiff sued the defendant attorneys,
         alleging fraud and intentional infliction of emotional
         distress based on their conduct during a judicial pro-
         ceeding. Id., 525. Specifically, the plaintiff in Simms
         claimed that the attorneys, who represented his former
         spouse during their divorce action, failed to disclose
         and intentionally concealed her true financial circum-
         stances to obtain a substantial alimony award in her
         favor. Id., 526–27. Arguing that absolute immunity
         barred those particular tort claims, the defendants
         moved to strike those claims. Id., 528. The trial court
         agreed and granted the motion, and the Appellate Court
         affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Id., 528–29.
Page 40                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL               January 25, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text