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

3,145 chars

marks omitted.) MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, supra,
310 Conn. 630–31. We are not required to rely exclu-
sively or entirely on these factors; rather, they are useful
when undertaking a careful balancing of all competing
public policies implicated by the specific claim at issue
and determining whether affording attorneys this com-
mon-law immunity from this common-law action is war-
ranted.3 After evaluating the various policy concerns
raised by the parties in the present case, we conclude
that the litigation privilege applies to the plaintiff’s claim
of statutory theft.
II
The plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improp-
erly balanced competing public policy factors in con-
cluding that absolute immunity barred his statutory
theft claim. As the parties and the Appellate Court have
noted, there is no appellate authority from this state
regarding whether absolute immunity protects against
this kind of claim,4 and the plaintiff has alleged a unique
3
Justice Palmer dissented in Simms, disagreeing with the standard the
majority had established. See Simms v. Seaman, supra, 308 Conn. 584
(Palmer, J., dissenting). He argued that claims alleging fraud by attorneys
‘‘should be permitted if the plaintiff first seeks relief in the underlying
proceeding or files a grievance complaint against the offending attorney
and, in connection therewith, secures either a sanction against the attorney
or a finding of attorney misconduct. This limited immunity is sufficient to
protect attorneys against the threat of frivolous, retaliatory litigation, on
the one hand, and provides a fair opportunity for recovery by a party who
has been defrauded by opposing counsel, on the other.’’ Id. In the present
case, the plaintiff did not seek sanctions in the underlying proceeding, and
the grievance he filed against the defendant did not secure a finding of
attorney misconduct; rather, it was dismissed. Thus, even under Justice
Palmer’s standard, the plaintiff’s statutory theft claim, which is akin to a
claim of fraud, would not be permitted.
4
The Appellate Court noted: ‘‘Although there is no appellate authority on
this issue, a number of Superior Court cases have concluded that absolute
immunity is a bar to a claim against an attorney for statutory theft.’’ Scholz
v. Epstein, supra, 198 Conn. App. 211–12 n.2; see id., citing Vossbrinck v.
Cheverko, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Docket No.
CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S (February 20, 2018), Gordon v. Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, LLC, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No.
January 25, 2022 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 43

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text