The plaintiff attorney sought to recover damages from the defendant attorney
for defamation and fraud in connection with a grievance complaint the
plaintiff had failed against the defendant with the Statewide Grievance
Committee. Specifically, she claimed that the defendant published false
and defamatory statements and remarks about the plaintiff in the defen-
dant’s answer to the plaintiff’s grievance complaint. The trial court
granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and rendered judgment
thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held that the
trial court properly concluded that the litigation privilege barred the
plaintiff’s action sounding in defamation and fraud; that court properly
concluded that the litigation privilege extends absolute immunity to
statements made to the attorney disciplinary authority by an attorney
who is the subject of a grievance complaint, as an attorney who is the
subject of a grievance proceeding is a party to a quasi-judicial proceed-
ing, and, therefore, relevant statements made by the attorney are
shielded by the litigation privilege, and the plaintiff could not prevail
in her claim that the litigation privilege did not properly apply because
her complaint pleads facts suggesting that the defendant both abused
the judicial process and breached the professional duty of candor, as
our Supreme Court has refused to apply absolute immunity to causes
of action alleging the improper use of the judicial system, which is
disctict from attempting to impose liability on a participant in a judicial
proceeding for the words used therein, and this court has determined
prevously that statements made in a grievance proceeding are shielded
by absolute immunity, and that the act of filing a grievance is protected
as well.
Argued November 27, 2018—officially released April 2, 2019 Procedural History