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

1,404 chars

Of course, we do not condone theft as a legitimate
          tool of advocacy. As we said in Simms, such conduct
          is ‘‘strongly discouraged’’; id., 545; but, if such conduct
          were not immune from liability, ‘‘the most innocent of
          counsel might be unrighteously harassed with suits, and
          therefore it is better to make the rule of law so large
          that an innocent counsel shall never be troubled,
          although by making it so large counsel are included who
          have been guilty of malice and misconduct.’’ (Internal
          quotation marks omitted.) Id., 533–34. As discussed in
          more detail subsequently in this opinion, the plaintiff’s
          claim is premised on the defendant’s allegedly false or
          misleading communications to the court in the underly-
          ing foreclosure proceeding. Communication is a neces-
          sary advocacy tool that the litigation privilege protects,
          regardless of its false or malicious nature, thereby pro-
          moting candor in judicial proceedings. See Hopkins v.
          O’Connor, 282 Conn. 821, 838–39, 925 A.2d 1030 (2007).
          Thus, the plaintiff’s statutory theft claim does not chal-
          lenge the purpose of an underlying judicial proceeding.
January 25, 2022                CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                         Page 47

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text