noting that the letter at issue, which the court found covered by the privilege, "was addressed to an attorney who represented a party with a financial interest in the proceedings” and that "[c]opies ’of the letter were sent only to those who had a direct financial interest in the settlement of the estate”
How later courts described this case
- noting that the letter at issue, which the court found covered by the privilege, "was addressed to an attorney who represented a party with a financial interest in the proceedings” and that "[c]opies ’of the letter were sent only to those who had a direct financial interest in the settlement of the estate”
- noting that letter written by attorney was absolutely privileged because it was addressed to an attorney who represented a party with a financial interest in the proceeding, and copies were sent to individuals with direct financial interests in proceeding
- implying that an attorney could be “subject to disciplinary action by the court and by his bar association” for statements he made during a judicial proceeding despite “[t]he rule of absolute privilege”
- interpreting Ohio law in a defamation case and stating that “[i]t is beyond argument that statements made in pleadings filed in a judicial proceeding come within the rule of absolute privilege”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge
(concurring).
It is cold comfort to the appellant to be told that although statements made about him are libelous or slanderous, he can bring no action for defamation, even if the person making the statements knows they are false; and that, since they were made in reference to impending litigation, they are privileged. But that is the law. I concur in the opinion of Judge Combs.