# Preiser v. Rosenzweig

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · September 29, 1992 · 418 Pa. Super. 341

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761012

## Case

- **Full name:** Stanley E. PREISER, Appellant, v. Richard ROSENZWEIG
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 29, 1992
- **Citations:** 418 Pa. Super. 341; 614 A.2d 303; 1992 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3277
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Sole
- **Judges:** Sole, Johnson, Elliott
- **Cited by:** 44 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/9761012

## Opinion text

DEL SOLE, Judge,
dissenting:
The majority, based upon the conclusion that the judicial privilege does not extend to proceedings such as the instant fee determination dispute, has remanded the case for further proceedings in the trial court. I disagree.
Remand is required initially because it is not apparent from the record whether Appellant participated in the proceedings before the Special Fee Determination Committee of the Allegheny County Bar Association. The rules governing proceedings before the Committee require the agreement of both parties to participate in the proceedings and to have their dispute resolved by the Committee in order for the determination to be binding upon both of them. Therefore, the trial court must first determine whether Appellant agreed to participate. If he did not, the determination is not binding upon him and judicial immunity is inapplicable.
However, if it is determined that he did participate, judicial immunity should extend to protect the interests served by alternative dispute resolution proceedings such as the one in the instant case. Because such proceedings are designed to provide a forum for timely and conclusive resolution of disputes, the same privilege of judicial immunity should be extended to them, thus insuring the same efficiency inherent in the judicial process. Pennsylvania has no case law which prohibits the extension of immunity to alternative dispute resolution proceedings, and its public policy of facilitating efficient and effective resolution of disputes would be served by extending this privilege. Therefore, if both parties participated in the proceedings so as to be bound by the determina *351 tion, the privilege would extend to protect statements made concerning Appellant in the complaint, and Appellant’s claim of defamation would be dismissed.
I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761012. Public record. Not legal advice.