# Arneja v. Gildar

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 11, 1988 · 541 A.2d 621

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695648

## Case

- **Full name:** Harnam S. ARNEJA, Appellant, v. Robert W. GILDAR, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** May 11, 1988
- **Citations:** 541 A.2d 621; 1988 D.C. App. LEXIS 85; 1988 WL 57368
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pryor
- **Judges:** Pryor, Steadman, Gallagher
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695648

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “[f]or the absolute immunity of the privilege to apply, two requirements must be satisfied: (1) the statement must have been made in the course of or preliminary to a judicial proceeding; and (2) the statement must be related in some way to the underlying proceeding”
- holding that “an attorney is protected by an absolute privilege to publish false and defamatory matter of another during the course of or preliminary to a judicial proceeding, provided the statements bear some relation to the proceeding.”

## Opinion text

PRYOR, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
*607 Q. And what did Mr. Horton do then?
*625 The majority opinion cogently states a view for affirming the trial court ruling. Critical to our decision is the determination whether the questioned statements were made in the course of a judicial proceeding or even a conference preliminary to a proceeding. Recognizing, as does the majority, that it is difficult to draw a boundary for this absolute privilege, I am unable to distinguish this case from a similar scenario which occurs in the hallway or just outside of the courthouse. I agree that the relevance of the statements are a question of law. However, I think in this case, in particular, it is a question of fact whether there was a conference or even a discussion between the lawyers or whether this was a circumstance where one attorney was simply unilaterally abusing the other. As liberally as the privilege is to be construed, I question if the latter conduct should be protected.
I would remand for resolution of the factual question which I have noted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695648. Public record. Not legal advice.