Case Title: Post v. Mendel

Citation: 336 Pa. Super. 467, 485 A.2d 1176

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 1985-07-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
336 Pa. Superior Ct. 467 (1984) 485 A.2d 1176 Barton L. POST, Appellant, v. M. Mark MENDEL. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued September 12, 1984. Filed December 12, 1984. Petition for Allowance of Appeal Granted July 10, 1985. *469 William F. Sullivan, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellant. Daniel E. Murray, Philadelphia, for appellee. Before McEWEN, DEL SOLE and POPOVICH, JJ. POPOVICH, Judge: This is an appeal from the order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in response to a *470 complaint in trespass filed by the plaintiff-appellant (Barton L. Post, Esquire). We affirm in part and quash in part. We commence our discussion with the appellant's filing of a 2-count amended complaint against the defendant-appellee (M. Mark Mendel, Esquire). The first count sounded in libel and the second in slander, and in each the plaintiff sought in excess of $20,000 for compensatory damages as well as an equal amount in punitive or exemplary damages. In particular, the libel section averred the composition of a defamatory letter by the defendant, copies of which were mailed to a Bucks County judge (before whom the two were embroiled in litigation as opposing counsel), to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and to a William H. Simon, M.D., a supposed client of the plaintiff and a witness in the on-going Bucks County suit. The letter, with the legend "M. MARK MENDEL, LTD." and a listing of the 7-member firm, read: cc: Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court As for the content of the slander count, the plaintiff asserted, in relevant part, that: The defendant filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer arguing that the "alleged defamatory words [were] absolutely privileged in that they were disclosed in connection with a judicial proceeding." The court agreed that this was applicable to count I (libel), citing Anno., Libel and Slander: Out-of-Court Communications Between Attorneys Made Preparatory To, Or In The Course Or Aftermath Of, Civil Judicial Proceedings As Privileged, 36 A.L.R.3d 1328, and dismissed with prejudice that portion of the amended complaint. However, as to count II (slander), the court felt it proper to afford the plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint "with respect to the time and place of the alleged defamatory remarks, and to whom said remarks were published. . . ." This appeal followed. The first issue to be addressed concerns count I (libel) and whether that portion of the court's order finding the defamatory matter alleged in the letter absolutely privileged to be a correct assessment. See Dempsky v. Double, 386 Pa. 542, 126 A.2d 915 (1956). We believe it to be. Whether an attorney's written communication outside the confines of the courtroom is covered by an absolute privilege appears to be a question of limited review in Pennsylvania. It is not, however, a novel question. See Smith v. Griffiths, 327 Pa.Super. 418, 476 A.2d 22 (1984). *474 The Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 586, provides: Likewise, at 53 C.J.S., Libel and Slander, § 104(7) ("Communications by Counsel") it is written: This view was echoed by the Supreme Court of Idaho in a case strikingly similar to the one at bar. In sustaining the district court's grant of defendant's general demurrer to the complaint for libel, the Idaho Court stated: Richeson v. Kessler, 73 Idaho 548, 552, 255 P.2d 707, 709 (1953). Accord Simon v. Potts, 33 Misc.2d 183, 225 N.Y.S.2d 690 (1962). In Pennsylvania, this philosophy of permitting libel and slander to go unpunished when privileged is permised upon the theory that it is better that an individual be harmed than the public go uninformed about public business. Biggans v. Foglietta, 403 Pa. 510, 511, 170 A.2d 345, 346 (1961). Certainly, as noted by our Supreme Court in the context of "pleadings", "[p]ublic policy requires this, even if [sicthough] at times the privilege of immunity for false and malicious averments in pleadings is abused. Justice can be administered only when parties are permitted to plead freely in the courts and to aver whatever ought to be known without fear of consequences, if a material and pertinent averment should not be sustained. Wrong may at times be done to a defamed party, but it is damnum absque injuria. The inconvenience of the individual must yield to a rule for the good of the general public." Kemper v. Fort, 219 Pa. 85, 93-94, 67 A. 991 (1907). As cited to in Kemper, this rule of absolute immunity from suit for libel is applicable "only when the defamatory words are relevant and pertinent to the matter or matters to be inquired into by the court. . . ." 219 Pa. at 93, 67 A. 991. "Where the question of the relevancy and pertinency of matters alleged in pleadings is to be inquired into," the same Court went on to say, "all doubt should be resolved in favor of relevancy and pertinency." 219 Pa. at 94, 67 A. 991. See also Greenberg v. Aetna Insurance Co., 427 Pa. 511, 235 A.2d 576 (1967), cert. denied sub nom. Scarselletti *476 v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 392 U.S. 907, 88 S. Ct. 2063, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1366 (1968); Rose v. Wissinger, 294 Pa.Super. 265, 439 A.2d 1193 (1982) and compare with Barto v. Felix, 250 Pa.Super. 262, 378 A.2d 927 (1977); Miller v. Hubbard, 205 Pa.Super. 111, 207 A.2d 913 (1965). We see no reason why the cloak of immunity should not also be draped over an attorney's communications with the court before whom he is litigating, provided, of course, the matter is relevant and pertinent to the dispute being heard. Simon v. Potts, supra; Richeson v. Kessler, supra; Greenberg v. Aetna Insurance Co., supra; 53 C.J.S., Libel and Slander, § 104(7). To assist us in determining relevancy, we need not inquire into the truth of the writing complained-of; for if the writing was relevant, it was absolutely privileged, and a person who is absolutely privileged is immune from financial liability even if his statement is a knowing and malicious falsehood. Jennings v. Cronin, 256 Pa.Super. 398, 401, 389 A.2d 1183, 1185 (1978). We find that Attorney Mendel's communique, having occurred during the course of trial and having dealt with purportedly perjurious testimony, was relevant and pertinent to the litigation, and, thus, absolutely privileged. Richeson v. Kessler, supra. It cannot be doubted that "if all of the statements made by the defendant[-attorney] . . . in his letter . . . had been made in open Court they would have been held to be pertinent and privileged." Simon v. Potts, supra, 225 N.Y.S.2d at 700. Thus, it follows that in the case at bar the witness-Dr. William H. Simon, whose testimony was at issue, had a common interest in the controversy (claim of perjury) that occasioned the letter, since he could be the object of a perjury charge (18 Pa.C. S.A. § 4902). See generally Larmour v. Campanale, 96 Cal. App. 3d 566, 158 Cal. Rptr. 143 (1979); Romero v. *477 Prince, 85 N.M. 474, 513 P.2d 717 (1973); Rankin v. Phillippe, 206 Pa.Super. 27, 211 A.2d 56 (1965). Accordingly, the privilege was not lost by the defendant-attorney sending a copy of the letter to Dr. Simon. Nor do we find that the immunity was neutralized by the same letter being forwarded to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. See Prosser, The Law of Torts, § 114 at 779-780 (4th Ed. 1971); Note, Attorneys' Remedies Against False Accusations of Unethical Practices, 32 Temp.L.Q. 415, 416 (1959); cf. Sullivan v. Birmingham, 11 Mass.App. 359, 416 N.E.2d 528, 534 (1981) ("The Canons of Ethics and Disciplinary Rules provide standards of professional conduct of attorneys and not grounds for civil liability."). Turning now to that part of the order appealed covering count II (slander), we find it to be interlocutory. To begin with, we observe that the law of defamation has led to the survival until the present day of two forms of action for defamatory publications: Libel, which originally concerned written or printed words; the other slander, was usually of an oral character. Prosser, The Law of Torts, § 112 at 751 (4th Ed. 1971); Western States Title Insurance Co. v. Warnock, 18 Utah 2d 70, 415 P.2d 316 (1966). Instantly, the appellant's 2-count complaint in trespass dealt with separate causes of action. One in libel, as to letters allegedly defaming the appellant; the second, in slander, covered statements supposedly made by the appellant to individuals other than those referred to in count I (libel). Thus, the two counts are not theories in support of recovery for defamation "arising out of the same transaction." J.A. & W.A. Hess, Inc. v. Hazle Township, 465 Pa. 465, 470, 350 A.2d 858, 861 (1976); see also Canulli v. Allstate Insurance Co., 315 Pa.Super. 460, 462 A.2d 286 (1983); Praisner v. Stocker, 313 Pa.Super. 332, 459 A.2d 1255 (1983). *478 Therefore, it is abundantly clear to us that the trial court's order does not dispose of the entire case or otherwise end the litigation. Pugar v. Greco, 483 Pa. 68, 394 A.2d 542 (1978). The appellant is not "out of court" since he still may pursue his claim for damages based upon slander (count II), once he amends his complaint to clarify when, where and to whom the statements were made. See Itri v. Lewis, 281 Pa.Super. 521, 422 A.2d 591 (1980). This requirement is not dispensed with by the appellant's argument that such inquiry can be made, and the information secured brought to the trial court's attention, after discovery proceedings. Any information subsequently supplied by the defendant, for instance, during discovery (e.g., depositions) requested by the plaintiff cannot be used to supply the missing allegata of the complaint in trespass. "The sufficiency of the Complaint is governed by the facts alleged therein and the fact that the lacking information subsequently was or could be supplied is not governing." Gross v. United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., 224 Pa.Super. 233, 235, 302 A.2d 370, 371 (1973). Consequently, based on the aforesaid, we find the trial court's order dismissing count II (slander) to be interlocutory. See Stengena v. Madden, 291 Pa.Super. 364, 435 A.2d 1269 (1981); Mitchell v. Center City Cadillac, 287 Pa.Super. 350, 430 A.2d 321 (1981). Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the order of the court below as to count I (libel); as for count II (slander) of the same order, we quash.[1] [1] There has likely never been a practitioner who has not experienced chagrin, distress and outrage at the hands of an adversary. Certain adversaries are particularly skilled at triggering such a reaction and even rely upon it as an instrument of the profession. However, it ill serves the profession generally, outraged counsel specifically, and his cause particularly, when retort is served in so reprehensible a fashion. We are, therefore, somewhat inclined to observe that while the communique of counsel is privileged, we do not condone and, in fact, view with disfavor the manner of his expression of his grievance.