Weiler v. Stern
| Decision Date | 06 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1950,77-1950 |
| Citation | 67 Ill.App.3d 179,384 N.E.2d 762,23 Ill.Dec. 855 |
| Parties | , 23 Ill.Dec. 855 Robert J. WEILER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Herbert L. STERN, Jr., Benjamin M. Brodsky, Jack Jacobs, Bernard Weisberg, Ellis Shaffer, Elliot I. Goodman, Kenneth S. Haberman, Mark S. Lieberman, Jack B. Schmetterer and Claude A. Roth, Partners d/b/a Gottlieb & Schwartz. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James E. Land Ltd., Calumet City, for plaintiff-appellant; Edward J. Szewczyk, Belleville, of counsel.
Lord, Bissell & Brook, for appellees; Don W. Fowler, Hugh C. Griffin and R. Bruce Duffield, Chicago, of counsel.
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the circuit court of Cook County in which the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted. The plaintiff, Robert J. Weiler, brought a libel suit against the defendant law firm, Gottlieb & Schwartz (Gottlieb), and each of its partners individually, based upon a letter written by a member of the firm. The letter referred to Mr. Weiler in allegedly libelous terms.
The Gottlieb firm served as attorneys of record for five Illinois limited partnerships, owners of an apartment complex purchased from Michael Sparks. The plaintiff, Weiler, was the common general partner of the partnerships. The partnerships were experiencing financial difficulties and, in 1975, both the partnerships and many of the limited partners were represented by Gottlieb in two pending lawsuits: one was an action by the limited partners seeking rescission of each of their partnership interests against Sparks, Weiler's predecessor as general partner, on the grounds of fraud and securities law violations; the other suit was a mortgage foreclosure action, brought by lien holders of the partnerships' apartment complex, against Weiler and Sparks.
Gottlieb entered into settlement negotiations, seeking to resolve both pending suits, and proposed selling the partnerships' apartment complex to Sparks. A majority of the limited partners approved this proposed sale and authorized Weiler to enter into a contract of sale with Sparks. Weiler, in his capacity as the general partner, refused to sell the property to Sparks and instead entered into an agreement with Kaler Enterprises, Inc., (Kaler) which gave Kaler a five year option to purchase the property. Weiler was a shareholder of Kaler.
The allegedly libelous letter of August 25, 1975, was addressed to each of the limited partners represented by the firm. It was not sent to any persons who were not clients of Gottlieb. In Gottlieb's opinion, the Kaler option contract was less advantageous to the limited partners than the proposed sale to Sparks and the letter contained a lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of the two offers. The letter suggested various grounds for voiding the Kaler contract, including the fact that, in Gottlieb's opinion, Weiler "was acting in his own self-interest and not in the best interests of the partnerships" when he entered the contract with Kaler. The letter also noted "(i)t would have been much easier for us to have remained silent and allowed Mr. Weiler and Kaler Enterprises to take advantage of you."
Gottlieb moved for summary judgment, pleading as an affirmative defense the absolute privilege of an attorney-client communication relating to pending judicial proceedings. That motion was granted and Weiler appeals.
The plaintiff argues that an out-of-court communication made by an attorney concerning one of his clients to various other clients is not absolutely privileged. The plaintiff contends that this is a case of first impression in Illinois and urges that this court adopt a "qualified" privilege standard. The defendant responds that the scope of the absolute attorney privilege is broad enough to encompass this case.
The defense of absolute privilege has been described as resting upon the idea "that conduct which otherwise would be actionable is to escape liability because the defendant is acting in furtherance of some interest of social importance, which is entitled to protection even at the expense of uncompensated harm to the plaintiff's reputation." (Prosser, Torts § 114 at 776 (4th ed. 1971).) The Restatement of Torts defines an absolute privilege as one "created by law * * * by reason of the character of the occasion upon which the defamatory matter is published * * *," and also notes that the privilege is "based upon a policy which regards the ends to be gained by permitting such statements as outweighing the harm which may be done to the reputation of others." Restatement of Torts, Introductory Note to tit. B, ch. 25; See also, Cook v. East Shore Newspapers, Inc. (1945), 327 Ill.App. 559, 64 N.E.2d 751.
Absolute privilege in defamation actions protects anything said or written in a legal proceeding, so long as it is pertinent and material to the matter in controversy. Dean v. Kirkland (1939), 301 Ill.App. 495, 23 N.E.2d 180; Restatement of Torts, § 586.
The issue here is whether the letter to Gottlieb's clients was written in connection with a legal proceeding and whether it was pertinent thereto. Prosser notes "(t)he 'judicial proceeding' to which the immunity attaches has not been defined very exactly." (Prosser, § 114 at 779.) This statement aptly describes the current state of Illinois law on the subject. Although at least one case found the privilege applicable to an out-of-court communication (Dean ), no Illinois court appears to have directly considered the scope of the "judicial proceeding" to which the privilege attaches.
Section 586 of the Restatement construes the privilege in a rather broad fashion:
"An attorney at law is absolutely privileged to publish false and defamatory matter of another in communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the institution of, or during the course and as a part of a judicial proceeding in which he participates as counsel, if it has some relation thereto."
Comment a. to section 586 states a publication is "protected not only when made in the institution of the proceedings or in the conduct of litigation before a judicial tribunal, but in conferences and other communications preliminary thereto."
Other jurisdictions appear to have had little difficulty in finding that some out-of-court communications come within the scope of the "judicial proceeding" absolute privilege. For example, in Kennedy v. Cannon (Md.App.1962), 229 Md. 92, 182 A.2d 54, the court, in commenting on section 586 of the Restatement, wrote
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc. v. Liang
...192 F.2d 823, 824 (7th Cir. 1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 934, 72 S.Ct. 770, 96 L.Ed. 1342 (1952); Weiler v. Stern, 67 Ill.App.3d 179, 181, 23 Ill.Dec. 855, 856, 384 N.E.2d 762, 763 (1978); Wahler v. Schroeder, 9 Ill. App.3d 505, 507, 292 N.E.2d 521, 523 (1972); see generally W. Prosser, Ha......
-
Bond v. Pecaut
...(1981); McCutcheon v. Moran, 99 Ill.App.3d 421, 425, 54 Ill.Dec. 913, 916, 425 N.E.2d 1130, 1133 (1981); Weiler v. Stern, 67 Ill.App.3d 179, 23 Ill.Dec. 855, 384 N.E.2d 762 (1978); Dean v. Kirkland, 301 Ill.App. 495, 510, 23 N.E.2d 180, 188 Two cases are particularly pertinent. In Nolin v. ......
-
Parrillo, Weiss & Moss v. Cashion
...plaintiff in the letter were pertinent to the issues raised by defendant and are absolutely privileged. See Weiler v. Stern (1978), 67 Ill.App.3d 179, 23 Ill.Dec. 855, 384 N.E.2d 762; Macie v. Clark Equipment Co. (1972), 8 Ill.App.3d 613, 290 N.E.2d 912 (a party is not answerable for statem......
-
Defend v. Lascelles
...Ill.Dec. 805, 426 N.E.2d 1130; Anderson v. Matz (1978), 67 Ill.App.3d 175, 23 Ill.Dec. 852, 384 N.E.2d 759; Weiler v. Stern (1978), 67 Ill.App.3d 179, 23 Ill.Dec. 855, 384 N.E.2d 762; Wahler v. Schroeder (1972), 9 Ill.App.3d 505, 292 N.E.2d 521; Macie v. Clark Equipment Co. (1972), 8 Ill.Ap......