THI RD DI VI SI ON DOYLE, P. J.

, REESE and BROWN, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

D E A D LIN E S A R E N O LO N G E R TO LLE D IN T

H I S

C O U R T. A LL FILIN G S M U ST B E S U B M I TTE D WITH IN

TH E TIM E S S E T B Y

O U R C O U R T R U LE S

.

October 25, 2021



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 1 A1 01 0 . RIM ERT v . M ERIW E THER & THARP, LLC et al

.

A2 1 A1 01 1 . M E RIW ETHER & THARP, LLC et al

. v . RIM ERT.

A2 1 A1 01 2 . M E RIW ETHER & THARP, LLC et al

. v . VALADE.

R E E S E
, J u d g e.

Th i s i n v as i o n o f p ri v acy an d l eg al m al p ract i ce l aws u i t aro s e fro m th e d i v o rce

an d ch i l d cu st o d y l i t i g at io n b et ween J en ni fer V al ad e an d K en n et h V al ad e. Ken n et h

Val ad e, al l eg ed l y at t he ad v i ce o f h i s at t o rn ey s

— El i zab et h Do ak

, Pat ri ck

M eri wet h er, an d M eri wet her & Th arp, L L C ( c olle c tive ly

, the “ A ttorn ey s ”)

— s ecret l y

reco rd ed J en n i fer Val ad e an d Cry s t al Ri m ert i n a b ed ro o m an d s u b s eq u en t l y

d i s t ri b u t ed t ho s e reco rd i ng s

. Th e tri al co u rt

, i n a part i al s u m m ary ju dg m en t o rd er: (1 )

g ran t ed s um m ary ju d g m en t i n fav o r o f t h e At to rn ey s o n Ri m ert ’ s cl ai m s o f n eg l i g en t

t rai n in g an d s u p erv i si o n of D o ak ; (2 ) gran t ed s u m m ar y j u d g m e n t i n fav or o f t h e

At t o rn ey s o n Ri m ert ’ s cl ai m o f l i ab i l i t y p er s e fo r a v i o l at i o n o f Geo rg i a’ s cri m i n alwi ret ap p i n g s t at u te, OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -6 2 ( 2); (3 ) d en i ed th e At t o rn ey s ’ s u m m ary

ju d g m en t m o ti o n o n Ken n et h Val ad e’ s cl ai m s o f l eg al m al p ract i ce; an d (4 ) d en i ed t h e

At t o rn ey s ’ s u m

m ary ju d g m e n t m o t i on w i t h res pect t o Ri m ert ’ s i n v as i o n o f p ri v acy

cl ai m s ag ai n st t h e At t o rn ey s. Th i s ap p eal b y Ri m ert an d t h e A t t orn ey s fo l l o w ed

. Fo r

t h e reas o n s s et fo rt h i n f

r a , w e affi rm i n Cas e No

. A2 1 A1 0 1 0

, affi rm i n p art an d

rev ers e i n p art i n Cas e No . A2 1 A1 0 1 1

, an d rev ers e i n Cas e No . A2 1 A1 0 1 2

.

Vi ewed i n t h e l i g h t m os t fav o rab le t o t h e res p ect i v e no n m ov i ng part i es b el o w, 1

t h e reco rd s h o w s th e fo l l owi ng

. J en n i fer V al a d e f i l e d fo r d i v o rce ag ai ns t Ken n et h

Val ad e i n J u l y 2 0 1 3

. Ken n et h Val ad e h ired t h e At t o rn ey s t o rep res en t h im i n t h e

d i v o rce. D o ak g rad u at ed l aw s ch o o l i n 2 0 1 0 an d h ad been wo rk in g at M eri w et h er &

Th arp t h e p r i o r t h ree y ears si n ce p as s i n g t h e Geo rg i a Bar. A cco rd i n g t o Ken n et h

Val ad e, du ri n g an i n i t ial m eet i n g wi t h t h e At t o rn ey s , M eri w et h er ad v i s ed h i m to

p l ace a “ n an n y cam ” i n J en n i fer Val ad e’ s b ed ro o m , an d th at i t was l eg al to d o s o an d

d i rect l y rel at ed t o t h e i ss ues i n th e d i v o rce. Do ak ag reed wi t h t h i s ad vi ce. A t t h e t i m e,

t h e co u rt h ad a s tan d i n g o rd er i n d i v o rce act i o n s t hat p ro h i b i t ed a p art y fro m “ p l aci n g

u n d er s u rv ei l l an ce

. . . fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f h a r a s s i n g an d i n t i m i d at i n g t h e o t h er

p art y [.] ”

1 See Gr i f fi n v. S t at e Ba n k , 3 1 2 Ga. Ap p. 8 7 (7 18 SE2 d 3 5 ) (2 0 11 ).

2Ken n e t h V a l ad e pro ceed ed t o i n s t al l i n J en n i fer V al ad e’ s b ed ro o m a co v ert

s u rv ei l l an ce cam era t h at h e h ad recei v ed fro m a pri v at e in v es ti g at o r. A t th e t i m e, t h e

Val ad es were n o t l i v i n g t o g et h er, wi t h J en n ifer Val ad e o ccu py in g t he m ari t al h o m e

o n t h e w eek d ay s , an d Ken net h Val ad e o ccu p y i n g t h e h o m e o n t h e week en d s

. Th e

cam era was m o ti o n -act i v at ed an d v i d eo was reco rd ed t o an SD card

. Am o n g o t h er

reco rd i n g s , t h e cam era cap t u red J en n i fer Val ad e an d Ri m ert i n b ed t o g et h er h av i n g

s ex u al rel at i o n s.

Ken n et h Val ad e sh o wed t h e reco rd i n g s t o Do ak an d t h e p ri v at e i n v es t i g at o r.

M eri wet h er s en t a l et t er t o J en n i fer Val ad e’ s co u n s el o n A u g u s t 2

, 2 01 3

, s t at i n g t h at

Ken net h Val ad e h ad recen t l y beco m e aware t h at J en n i fer Val ad e was h av i n g s ex wi th

Ri m er t in t h e m ari t al h om e. T h e l et t er d em an d ed t h at “ [t ] h i s b eh av i o r m u s t s t o p

i m m ed i a t e l y

. ” (Em p has i s in o ri g i n al ). Ot h erwi s e, Ken n et h Val ad e wo ul d s eek an

em erg en cy h eari n g , wh i ch wo u l d “ fo rce h i m t o p res en t al l ev i d en ce o f M s

. Val ad e’ s

ad u lt ero u s , l es b i an rel at i on s h ip th ereb y m ak i n g i t pu b l i c reco rd .” Th e A t t o rn ey s

s u b s eq u en t l y fi l ed a m o t i o n w i t h t he t ri al co u rt s eek i n g an em erg en cy h eari n g

. Th e

m o ti o n rev eal ed t h at Ken n et h Val ad e h ad p l aced a cam era in t h e ho m e, wh i ch h ad

reco rd ed J en n i fer Val ad e an d Ri m ert en g ag i n g i n s ex u al rel at i o n s

.

3Th e co u rt deci d ed to co n s i d er t h e At t o rn ey s ’ m o t i o n o n t h e r e g ul ar m o t i on s

cal en d ar, b u t h el d an em erg en cy h eari n g o n Au g us t 1 5, 2 0 1 3 , aft er J en n i fer Val ad e

m ad e al leg at i o n s o f do m es t i c vi o l en ce ag ai n s t Ken n et h V al ad e. Do ak rep res en t ed

Ken net h Val ad e at t h e h eari n g

. J en n ifer V al ad e al l eg ed th at Ken n et h Val ad e h ad

p i n n ed h er ag ai n s t a wal l an d s h o v ed h er d o wn t h e b as em en t s t ep s

. Sh e t o o k p i ct u res

o f th e b ru i s es , rep ort ed t h e i n ci den t t o t h e p o l i ce, an d sh o w ed t h e b ru i s es t o a d ep u t y

.

Sh e al s o al l eg ed at t h e h eari n g th at Ken net h Val ad e h ad s h ak en , p u sh ed

, an d t h ro wn

o b ject s at t h ei r d au g h ter. Ken n et h Val ad e d en i ed h urt i ng hi s wi fe an d ch i l d

, bu t s t at ed

t h at he had

, at t h e ad v i ce of co u n s el

, p la c e d a cam era i n t h e b ed ro o m

. Th e co u rt

g ran t ed J en n i fer Val ad e’ s req u es t fo r a fam il y v io l en ce p ro t ect i v e o rd er.

A d ay aft er t h e h eari n g , t h e St at e i s s u ed a warran t fo r K en n et h Val ad e’ s arres t

fo r ag g rav at ed s tal k i n g an d u n l awfu l s u rv ei ll an ce. Th e St at e l at er i n d i ct ed h i m fo r

b u rg lary

, ag g rav at ed s t al k i ng , in v as i o n of p ri v acy , an d fam i l y v i o l en ce b at t ery

. Th e

fi rs t t hree ch arg es were b as ed o n h i m pl aci n g a cam e r a i n t h e b e dro o m

. Th e St at e

u l t i m at el y

n o l l e p ro s sed al l t h e ch arg es

.

Ri m ert fi l ed a co m

p l ai n t ag ai n s t Ken net h Val ad e, th e At t o rn ey s , an d o t h ers

al l eg in g cl ai m s ag ai n s t t h e At t o rn ey s o f, am o n g o t h er t hi n g s : v io l at i o n s o f h er ri g ht

t o p ri v acy u n d er OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -6 2 (2 ), (6 ), an d (7 ); neg l i g en t t rai n i n g an d

4s u p erv i s i o n b y M eri wet h er & Th arp o v e r i t s e m p l o y ee Do ak ; an d v i ol at i o n s o f

Ri m ert ’ s co m

m o n l aw ri gh t t o p ri v acy

. Ken n et h Val ad e fi led a cro s s-cl ai m ag ai n s t t h e

At t o rn ey s fo r p ro fes s i o n al n eg l i g en ce an d m al pract ice. Th e At to rn ey s fi l ed a m o t i o n

fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n Ri m ert ’ s an d Ken net h V a l a d e ’ s cl ai m s , w h i ch t h e t ri al

co u rt gran t ed i n p art an d d en ied i n part

. Th es e ap p eal s b y Ri m ert an d t h e A t t o rn ey s

fo l l o w ed

.

Su m

m ary ju d g m e n t i s p r o p er wh en t h ere i s n o g en u i ne i s s u e o f

m at eri al fact an d t h e m o van t i s en t i t l ed to ju dg m en t as a m at t er o f l aw.

A d e n o vo s t an d ard o f rev i ew ap p l i es to an ap peal fro m a g ran t o r d en i al

o f s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, an d we v i ew t h e ev id en ce, an d al l rea s o n ab l e

co n cl u s i o n s an d i nferen ces d rawn fro m i t, i n t he l i gh t m os t fav o rab l e t o

t h e n o n m ov an t

. 2

W i th t h es e g u id in g p ri n ci p l es i n m i n d , we n o w t urn t o t h e p art i es ’ cl ai m s o f erro r.

Ca s e No . A2 1 A1 0 1 0

1

. Ri m ert arg u es t hat t h e t ri al co urt erred i n g ran t in g t he At t o rn ey s ’ s u m m ary

ju d g m en t m o t i on reg ard in g h er cl ai m s o f n eg li g en t s u p erv i s i o n an d t rai n i n g o f Do ak

.

Th e t ri al co u rt b el o w fo u n d t h at Ri m ert ci t ed t o n o ev i d en ce t h at Do ak was so m eh o w

2 Gr i f f i n , 3 12 Ga. Ap p . at 8 7 (ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ).

5u n s u it ed t o rep res en t Ken n et h Val ad e o r t h at M eri w et h er & Th arp was aware o f s o m e

i n ab i l i t y

.

“ An em p l o y er m ay b e h el d l i ab l e fo r neg l i g en t s up erv i s io n o n ly wh ere t h ere

i s s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce t o es t ab l is h t h at t h e em p lo y er reas o nab l y k n ew or sh o u l d h av e

k n o wn o f an em

p l o y ee ’s t en d en ci es t o en g ag e in cert ai n b eh av i o r rel ev an t t o t h e

i n ju ri es al l eg ed l y i n cu rred by t h e p l ai n t i ff.” 3 Here, Ri m ert p ri m ari l y ci t es to Do ak ’ s

rel at i v e i n ex p eri e n c e i n t h e leg al i s s u es p res en t ed i n th i s cas e. Ho wev er, we ag ree

wi t h t h e tri al co u rt t h at t h e reco rd was d ev o i d o f ev id en ce t h at Meri w et h er & Th arp

d i s reg ard ed i n d i cat i o n s th at D o ak was s om eh o w u n s u i t ed fo r rep res en t at i o n.

Acco rd in g ly

, t h e tri al co u rt d id n o t err i n gran t i ng s u m m ary ju dg m en t o n t h i s cl ai m

. 4

2

. Ri m ert arg u es t h at t he t ri al co urt erred i n g ran t in g t he At t o rn ey s ’ s u m m ary

ju d g m en t m o t io n reg ard i n g h er cl ai m s t h at t he d efen d an ts v i o l at ed OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -6 2

(2 ) an d w ere t h us p er s e l i ab l e. Sh e co n ten d s t h at th e fact f i n d e r sh o u l d d et erm i n e

wh et h er t h e p u rp o s e o f t he reco rd i ng s fel l u n d er t h e cri m e-d et ect i o n ex cep t i o n t o t h e

s t at u te, o r wh et h er t h e reco rd i ng s were m ad e fo r s o m e o t h er i m perm i ss i b l e p u rp o s e.

3 Leo v. W

a f f l e Ho u s e , 2 9 8 Ga. Ap p . 8 3 8 , 8 4 1 (2 ) (6 8 1 SE2 d 2 5 8 ) (2 0 0 9 ).

4 See Mu n r o e v. Un i ver

s a l Hea l t h S

vcs

. , 27 7 Ga. 8 6 1

, 86 6 (2 ) (5 96 SE2 d 6 0 4 ) (2 0 0 4); Leo , 2 98 Ga. Ap p . at 8 4 1 (2 ).

6At t h e t i m e o f t h e su rv ei ll an ce i n 20 1 3, OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -6 2

, a cri m i n al s t at u t e,

p ro v id ed :

It sh al l b e u n l awfu l fo r:

. . . (2 ) An y p ers o n , t h ro u g h t h e u s e o f an y d ev i ce, wi t h o u t t h e co n sen t of al l

p ers on s o b s erv ed

, to o b s e r v e , p h o t o g rap h

, o r reco rd th e act i v i t i es o f

an o t her wh i ch occu r i n an y p ri v at e p l a c e an d o u t o f p u b l i c vi ew;

p ro v i d ed , h o wev er, t h at i t s h al l n o t b e u n l awfu l :

. . . (C) To u s e fo r s ecu ri t y p u rp o s es , cri m e p rev e n t i o n , o r cri m e d et ect i o n

an y dev i ce t o ob s erv e, p h o t o grap h

, o r reco rd t h e act i vi t i es o f p ers o n s

wh o are wi th i n t h e cu rt i l ag e o f t h e res id en ce o f t h e p ers o n u si n g s u ch

d ev i ce. A p h o t o g rap h

, v i d eo t ap e, o r reco rd m ad e i n acco rd an ce w i t h t h i s

s u b p arag rap h

, o r a co p y t h ereo f, m ay be d i scl o s ed by s u ch res i d en t t o

t h e d i s t ri ct at t o rn ey o r a l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer an d s h al l b e ad m i s si bl e

i n a ju d ici a l p ro ceed i n g , wi t h o u t t h e co ns en t o f an y p ers o n o b serv ed

,

p h o t o g rap h ed , o r reco rd ed [.]

In Ru t t er v. Ru t t er (“

Ru tt er I ”), i s s u ed ab o u t o ne y ear b efo re t he At t o rn ey s ’

ad v ice t o Ken n et h V al ad e, w e h el d t h at th e t ri al co u r t i n a d iv o rce act i o n p ro p erl y

d en ied a m o t io n t o ex cl u d e a s u rrep t i t io u s rec o r d i n g o f an o p p o s i n g s p ou s e i n t h e

m ari t al h o m e. 5 In t h at cas e, OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -6 2 (2 ) di d n o t b a r a d m i ss i o n o f t h e

5 See Ru t t er

v. Ru tt er , 3 1 6 Ga. Ap p

. 8 9 4, 9 0 2 (2 ) (c) (7 30 SE2 d 6 2 6 ) (2 0 1 2 ),

o v erru l ed b y Ru t t er

v. Ru t t er , 2 9 4 Ga. 1 (7 4 9 SE2 d 6 5 7 ) (2 0 13 ).

7reco rd i n g b ecau s e t h e wi fe s et u p t he reco rd i n g fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f cri m e d et ect i o n,

i n o rd er t o d o cu m en t h arm t h e h u s b an d m i g h t v i s i t u po n t h e ch i l d ren

. 6 Su b sect i o n (C)

t o OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -6 2 (2 ) ap p li ed ev en t h o u g h t he wi fe’s p ri m ary o b ject iv e was to

o b t ai n cu s t od y i n t h e divor c e pr oceed i ng

. 7 Th e At t o rn ey s ex p li ci t l y rel i ed up o n Ru tt er

I an d O CGA § 1 6-1 1 -6 2 (2 ) (C) i n t h ei r p l ead i n g s i n t h e Val ad e d iv o rce act i o n

. Th e

At t o rn ey s cl ai m ed t h at Ken net h Val ad e was “ co n cern ed ” wi th t h e cri m e o f ad u l t ery ,

wh i ch i s a m i s d em ean o r u n d er OCGA § 1 6-6 -1 9

. 8

In Oct o b er 20 1 3

, ab o u t t wo m o n t h s aft er Ken n et h V al ad e m ad e t h e reco rd i n g s ,

t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o f G eo rg ia r e v e r s e d o u r deci s i o n i n R u t ter I (“ Ru t t er II ”). 9 Th e

Co u rt h el d t hat s u b parag rap h (C) o f OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -6 2 (2 ), wh i ch was en act ed b y a

Ho u s e b i l l i n 2 00 0

, d i d n ot s urv i v e t h e en act m en t o f a Sen at e b i l l a week l at er

6 Ru t t er , 3 1 6 Ga. Ap p. at 9 0 2 (2 ) (c).

7 Id . at 9 0 1 (2 ) (c).

8 Th e p art i es d i d n ot arg u e b el o w wh et h er rel i an ce o n t he cri m e o f ad u l t ery was

p ro p er, g iv en t he o ffen s e’ s q u es t i o n ab l e co n s t i t u t i on al s t at u s

. See In r e J. M.

, 2 7 6 Ga.

8 8

, 9 0 -9 1 (3 ) (5 7 5 SE2 d 4 4 1) (2 0 0 3 ) (fo rn i cat i o n s t at u t e was u nco n st i tu t i o n al t o t h e

ex t en t i t cri m i n al i zed “ t h e p ri v at e, n o n -co m m erci al

, co n s en s u al s ex u al act s o f t wo

p ers o n s l eg al l y cap ab l e o f co ns en t [] ”). Becau s e t he part i es d i d no t ad dres s t h i s i s s u e b el o w o r o n ap p eal , we d o n o t ad d res s i t h ere.

9 Ru t t er , 2 9 4 Ga. at 3

.

8b ecau s e t h e Sen at e b i l l di d n o t co n t ai n th e s u b p arag r a p h

. 1 0 Acco rd i n g l y , g i v en t h e

Su p rem e Co u rt ’ s ho l d i n g i n Ru t t er II

, OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -6 2 (2 ) d i d n o t co n tai n p ro p erl y

en act ed ex cep t i o n s . Th e Gen eral As s em b l y co rrect ed t hi s o vers i g h t i n 2 0 1 5

. 1 1

Ri m ert co n ced es th at Ru t t er II s h o u l d n o t b e ap p l i ed ret ro act i v el y ag ai n s t t h e

At t o rn ey s

. 1 2 Sh e i n s t ead arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt sh o u l d n ot h av e d i s m i s s ed h er

en t i re cl ai m u n d er OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -6 2 (2 ), b ut sh o ul d h av e i n s t ead al l o wed t h e

fact fi n d er t o d et erm i n e wh et h er t h e At t o rn ey s ’ co nd u ct sat i sfi ed t he cri m e-d et ect i o n

ex cep t i o n u n d er s u bp arag rap h (C).

Here, t h e ev i d en ce was u n d i s p u t ed t h at K en n et h Val ad e an d t h e At t o rn ey s s et

o u t t o reco rd Ri m ert an d J en ni fer Val ad e co m m i t t h e cri m e 1 3 o f ad u l t ery wi t h i n t h e

cu rt i lag e o f Ken net h Val ad e’ s h o m e. Al t ho u g h Ri m ert ci tes t o v ary i n g o t h er reas on s

g i v en b y t h e At t o rn ey s an d Ken n et h Val ad e fo r t h e reco rd i n g , cri m e d et ect i o n n eed

1 0 Id . at 2-3

.

1 1 See Ga. L. 2 0 1 5 , p . 1 04 6 , § 2

.

1 2 S e e M o r r i s v. Tu r n key Med

. En g

. , 3 1 7 Ga. Ap p

. 29 5

, 2 99 (7 2 9 SE2 d 6 6 5 ) (2 0 1 2) (l i s t i n g fact o rs a co u rt s h o u l d co n s i d er i n deci d i n g t o ap p l y a cas e ret ro act i v el y

o r p ro s p ect i vel y ).

1 3 Ag ai n , we d o n o t co m

m en t o n wh et h er rel i an ce o n t h e cri m e o f ad u l t ery i n

o rd er t o s at i s fy

OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -6 2 (2 ) (C) was p ro p er.

9n o t be t he s o l e i n t en t of a p art y i n o rd er t o s at i s fy OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -6 2 (2 ) (C). 1 4 Th u s ,

t h e t ri al co u rt di d n o t err i n g ran t i ng s u m m ary ju d g m en t on t h i s i s su e. W e n o t e t h at

,

as ex pl ai n ed i n Di v i s i o n 3 b el o w, t h i s h o l d i ng d o es n o t p r e v e n t R i m ert fro m

p ro ceed in g o n h er cl ai m s o f co m m o n l aw i n v as i on o f p ri v acy

.

Ca s e No

. A2 1A1 0 1 1 1 5

3

. Th e At t o rn ey s arg u e t h at t h ey can n o t b e h el d l i ab l e un d e r t h eo ri es o f

co m m o n l aw i n v as io n o f p ri v acy b ecau s e th ei r b eh av io r was p erm i t t ed b y OCGA §

1 6 -1 1-6 2 (2 ) (C).

“ M o re t h a n 1 0 0 y ears ag o , ou r Su p rem e Co u rt reco g n i zed a p ri v at e ri g h t o f

act i on fo r an i nv as i on o f p ri v acy

. Si nce t h en , t h e Su p rem e Co urt an d t h i s Co u rt h av e

i d en t i fi ed fo u r k i n d s o f i n v as i o n o f p ri v acy fo r wh i ch a ri g h t o f a c t i o n ex i s t s , an d

am on g t h es e i s an i n t ru s i o n u p o n t h e s e c l u s i o n o r s ol i tu d e o f a p lai n t i ff o r i n t o h i s

1 4 See Ru t t er I

, 3 1 6 Ga. A p p

. at 9 0 2 (2 ) (c); s ee al so Fl eet Fi n an ce v. Jo n es , 2 6 3

Ga. 22 8

, 2 3 1 (3 ) (4 3 0 SE2 d 3 5 2 ) (1 9 9 3) (cri m i n al s t at u tes m u st b e s t ri ct ly co n s t ru ed

ag ai n s t cri m i n al l i ab il i ty

ev en i n t h e ci v i l co n t ex t ).

1 5 Th e At t o rn ey s b ri efed t h ei r cl ai m s o f erro r reg ard i n g Ken n et h Val ad e’ s l eg al

m al p ract i ce cl ai m s i n b o t h Cas e No s

. A2 1 A1 0 1 1 an d A2 1A1 0 1 2

. Th e At t o r n e ys ’

b ri efs reg ard i n g t h es e i s s u es are i d en t i cal

. W e w i l l ad dres s t he l eg al m al p ract i ce i s su es i n Di v is i o n s 6 an d 7 b el o w.

10p ri v at e affai rs .” 1 6 “ W i t h reg ard t o t hi s t y p e o f in v as io n o f p ri vacy , t h e Su p rem e Co u rt

h as h el d t h at t h e u n reas o n ab l e i n t ru s i o n as p ect i n v o l v es a p ry i n g o r i n t ru si on , wh i ch

w o u l d be o ffen s i v e o r o b j ect io n ab l e t o a reas o n ab le p ers o n , i n t o a p ers on ’ s p ri v at e

co n cern s.” 1 7 Th i s can i n cl u de s u rv ei l l an ce o n t h e p l ai n t i ff b y t h e d efen d an t. 1 8

“ Th e ci v i l l iab i l i t y o f [t h e d efen d an t ] m u s t b e d et erm i n ed u n der t h e ap p l i cab l e

p ro v is i o n s o f th e to rt l aws o f th i s s t at e, n ot t he i n ap pl i cab l e cri m in al pro v i s i o n s [.] ” 1 9

Here, t h e At t o rn ey s ’ p o t en t i al cri m i n al li ab i l it y u n d er O C G A § 1 6-1 1 -6 2 (2 ) i s

i rr e l ev an t t o t h ei r ci v i l l i ab i l i t y u n d er co m m o n law i n v as i on o f p ri v acy

. 2 0

Acco rd in g ly

, t he t ri al co u rt d i d n o t err i n d en y in g su m m ary ju d g m en t on t h i s cl ai m

.

1 6 Ben ed i ct v. S ta t e Fa r m Ba n k, FS B

, 3 09 Ga. Ap p

. 1 3 3

, 1 3 5 (1 ) (a) (7 0 9 SE2 d

3 1 4 ) (2 01 1 ) (ci t at io n s o m i t t ed ). “ Th e o t h er reco gn i zed i nv as i on s o f p ri v acy fo r wh i ch

a ri g h t o f act i o n ex i s ts are t h e p u b l i c d i s cl o s u re o f e m b a r r a s s i ng p ri v at e fact s , p u b l i ci t y t h at p u ts o n e i n a fal s e l i g h t

, an d t h e ap p ro p ri at i o n o f on e’ s n am e o r l i k en es s fo r t h e ad v an t ag e o f an o t h er.” Id . at 1 3 6 (1 ) (a) n . 3

.

1 7 As s n

. S vcs

. v. S mi th

, 2 4 9 Ga. Ap p

. 62 9

, 6 3 2 ( 2 ) ( 5 4 9 SE2 d 45 4 ) (2 0 0 1 ) (ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

1 8 S e e Ben ed i ct

, 3 0 9 Ga. Ap p

. at 13 6 (1 ) (a); Jo h n s o n v. A l l en , 2 7 2 Ga

. A p p

. 8 6 1 , 8 6 4 -8 6 5 (1 ) (6 1 3 SE2 d 6 5 7 ) (2 0 0 5 ).

1 9 S mi t h v. Ch emt u r a Co r

p

. , 2 9 7 Ga. Ap p

. 28 7

, 2 9 5 (6 ) (6 7 6 SE2 d 7 5 6 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (p u n ct u at i o n an d fo o t n o t e o m i t t ed ).

2 0 See i d

. at 29 4 -2 9 5 (6 ) (g i v en t h e p l ai n t i ffs ’ co m p l ai n t an d a rg um en t s o n

ap p eal

, t h ei r cl ai m s fo r cri m in al o ffen s es s u ch as cri m i n al b at t ery d i d n o t s tat e a cl ai m fo r ci vi l b at t ery ).

114

. T h e A t t orn ey s arg u e t hat t h ey can n o t b e h el d l iab l e u n d er OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -6 2

(6 ) fo r di s t ri b ut io n of t h e reco rd i n g t o co u ns el fo r J en n i fer V al ad e an d co u n s el fo r

Ken net h Val ad e b ecau s e l i ab i l i t y wo u l d v io l at e t h e At t orn ey s ’ d i s co v ery d u t i es

.

OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -6 2 al s o p ro v id es t h at i t i s u nl awfu l fo r:

(6 ) An y p ers on t o s el l

, gi v e, o r di s t ri b u t e, w i th o u t l eg al au t h o ri ty

, t o an y

p ers on o r en t i t y an y p h ot o g rap h

, v i d eo t ap e, o r reco rd

, o r co p i es t h ereo f,

o f t h e act i v i t i es o f an o t h er wh i ch o ccu r i n an y p ri v at e p l ace an d o ut o f

p u b l i c v iew wi t h ou t t h e co n s en t o f al l p ers o n s o b serv ed ; o r (7 ) An y pers o n t o co m

m i t an y o t h er act s o f a nat u re s i m i l ar t o th o s e s et

o u t i n p arag rap h s (1 ) t h ro u g h (6 ) of t h i s Co d e s ect i o n w hi ch i n v ad e th e

p ri v acy o f an o t h er.

Th e p hras e “ wi t h o u t l eg al au t h o ri t y ” as u s ed i n OCGA § 1 6 -1 1

- 6 2 ( 6 ) i s n ot

d efi n ed b y s t at u te. 2 1 W e are co nv i n ced

, h owev er, t h at a p art y d i s cl o s in g a reco rd i n g

fo r d i s co v ery p u rp o s es d o es n o t v io l at e t h i s s u bs ect i o n. 2 2 In d eed

, t h e Geo rg i a

Su p rem e Co u rt has h el d t h at a pro s ecu to r d o es n o t v i o l at e a s i m i l ar cri m i n al s t at u t e

p ro h ib i t i ng d i s t ri b u t i on o f s ex u al l y ex p l i ci t co n d u ct o f a m i no r wh en t h e p ro s ecu t o r

2 1 See OCGA § 16 -1 1 -6 0 (d efi n i t i o n s).

2 2 See In t l. Ha r ves t e r C o

. v

. C u n n i n g h am , 2 4 5 Ga. A p p

. 7 3 6

, 7 38 (1 ) (5 3 8

SE2 d 8 2 ) (2 0 0 0 ) (“ Di s co v ery i s an i n t eg ral an d n eces sary e l e m e n t o f o u r ci v i l

p ract i ce. W i d e l at i t ud e i s g i ven t o m ak e co m p l et e d is co v ery p o s s i b l e.”) (ci tat i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

12p ro d uces t h e reco rd i n g i n res p on s e t o a d is co v ery req u es t or co u rt o rd er. 2 3

Acco rd in g ly

, we rev ers e t he t ri al co u rt ’ s d en i al o f t h e At t o rn ey s ’ m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary

ju d g m en t wi t h res pect to Ri m ert ’ s cl ai m s t h at t h e At t o rn ey s v i o l at ed OCGA § 1 6 -1 1

-

6 2 (6 ). 2 4

5

. Th e At t o rn ey s al s o co n t en d t h at th ey can n o t b e h el d l i ab l e u n d er t h e cat ch al l

p ro v is i o n o f OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -6 2 (7 ).

Th e A t t orn ey s o n l y b ri efl y arg u ed b el o w th at t h ey d i d n o t v i o lat e th e cat ch al l

p ro v is i o n b ecau se t h ei r co n du ct was ex p li ci tl y au t h o ri zed b y OCGA § 16 -1 1 -6 2 (2 ).

Th e tri al c o u r t f

o un d t h at t he At t o rn ey s ’ s u m m ary j u d gm en t m o t i o n d i d n o t reach

Ri m ert ’ s cl ai m un der OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -6 2 (7 ) “ ex cep t t o t he ex t en t t h at su b sect i o n (7 )

i s co

- e x t e n s i v e wi th s u b sect i o n (2 ).” Becau s e t h e At t o rn ey s d i d n o t p res en t an y

ad d it i o n al arg u m en t s b efo re t h e t ri al co u rt reg ard i ng t h i s s u bs ect i o n, an d becau s e t h e

co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n ag rees t hat an y cl ai m u n d er OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -6 2 (7 ) can no t i m p l i cat e

2 3 See Al exa n d

er Pr o p er t i es Gr o u

p v. Do e , 28 0 Ga. 30 6 , 3 0 8 -3 0 9 (6 2 6 SE2 d

4 9 7 ) (2 0 0 6 ).

2 4 Al t h o u g h Ri m ert arg u es t h at t h e At t o rn ey s d id n ot p res en t th es e arg u m en t s b efo re t h e t ri al co urt

, t h e At to rn ey s rai s ed th es e arg u m en t s i n t h ei r rep l y bri ef b el o w

an d d u ri n g t h e s u m

m ary ju d g m en t h eari n g

.

13t h e ex cep t i o ns t o OCGA § 1 6-1 1 -6 2 (2 ), we affi rm t h e t ri al co urt ’ s d eci s i o n o n t h i s

i s su e. 2 5

Ca s e No

. A2 1A1 0 1 2 2 6

6

. Th e At t o rn ey s a r g u e t h at ju d g m en tal i m m u n it y b arred Ken n et h Val ad e’ s

m al p ract i ce cl ai m ag ai n s t t h em b ecau s e t h e s urv ei l l an ce an d su b s eq u e n t l et t er to

J en n ifer Val ad e’ s at t o rn ey was p erm i s s i b l e. Th e t ri al co urt fo u n d th at

, p u tt in g as i d e

an y p o t en t i al v i o lat io n o f OCGA § 1 6-1 1 -6 2

, a qu es t io n o f fact ex i s t ed wh et h er t h e

At t o rn ey s ’ co n d u ct v i ol at ed t h e d i v o rce co u rt ’ s st an d i n g o rd er p rev en t i n g

s u rv ei l l an ce fo r t h e p urp o s es o f h aras s m en t an d in t i m i d at i o n , an d th at s uch co n d u ct

l ed t o Ken n et h Val ad e’ s arres t fo r ag g rav at ed s t al ki n g

.

Un d er t h e Geo rg i a d o ct ri n e o f ju dg m en t al i m

m u ni t y , t h ere can be

n o l i a b i l i t y fo r act s an d o m i s si o n s by an at t o rn ey i n t h e co n du ct o f

l i ti g at i o n wh i c h are b as ed o n an ho n es t ex erci s e o f p ro fes s i o nal

ju d g m en t

. Th i s i s a s o u n d ru l e. Ot h erwi s e ev ery l o s i n g li t ig an t wo u l d be

ab l e t o s u e hi s at t orn ey i f h e co u l d fi n d an o th er at t o rn ey wh o w as

wi l l i n g t o s eco n d g u es s t h e d eci s i o n s of t h e fi rs t at to rn ey wi th th e

2 5 See P f ei ff er v. Ga

. Dep t

. o

f Tr a ns p

. , 2 7 5 Ga. 82 7

, 8 2 9 (2 ) (5 7 3 SE2 d 3 8 9 ) (2 0 0 2) (Ap p el lat e c o u r t s “ r e f u s e[] t o rev i ew i s s u es n o t rai s ed in th e t ri al co u rt

. . . . Fai rn es s t o t h e t ri al co u rt an d t o t h e p art ies d em an d s t hat l eg al i s s u es b e as s ert ed i n

t h e t ri al co urt .”).

2 6 Ken n et h Val ad e d i d n ot s u b m i t a res p o n s e b ri ef i n an y o f t h e t h ree cas es

.

14ad v an t ag e of h i nd s i g ht

. If t h i s were p e r m i t t ed

, t h e o ri g in al t ri al w o u l d

b eco m e a “ p lay

wi t hi n a p l ay ” at t h e m al p ract i ce t ri al

. 2 7

As t h e l eg al p ro fes s i o n i s at be s t an i n ex act s ci en ce, a b reach o f

d u t y ari s es o nl y wh en t h e rel ev an t

, i .e., l eg al p ri n ci pl es o r p ro ced ures

a r e wel l s et tl ed an d t h ei r a p p l i ca t i o n cl ea r l

y d ema n d ed

, a nd t he f a il u r e

t o a p p l y th em a p p a r en t

. Un l es s t h e law i s s o w el l s et t l ed

, cl ear, an d

wi d el y reco g n ized

, an at t o rn ey act i n g i n g o o d fai t h an d t o t h e b es t of h i s

k n o wl ed g e wi l l b e i n s u l at ed fro m l i ab i l i t y fo r ad vers e res u l t s. 2 8

In h i s res p o ns e t o t h e At t o rn ey s ’ m o t i on fo r su m m ary ju d g m e n t b e l o w,

Ken net h Val ad e arg u ed t h at t h e A t t o r ney s ’ m al pract i ce cau s ed h i m t o v io l at e t h e

d i v o rce co u rt ’ s s t an d i n g o rd er, wh i ch d i rect l y l ed t o h is arres t

.

“ A p ers o n co m

m i ts t he o ffen s e of ag g rav at ed s tal k i n g wh en s u c h

p e r s o n , i n v io lat i o n o f a

. . . t em p o rary res trai n i ng o rd er, t em p orary

p ro t ect i v e o rd er, p erm an en t res t rai n i n g o rd er, p erm an en t p ro t ect iv e

o rd er, [ o r] p rel i m i n ary i n ju n ct i o n

. . . pl aces un d er s u rv ei l l an ce

. . . wi t h ou t th e co n s en t o f th e o t h er p ers on fo r t h e p urp o s e o f h aras s i n g an d

i n t i m i d at i n g t h e o t h er p ers o n .” 2 9

2 7 En g el ma n v. Kes s l er , 3 4 0 Ga. Ap p

. 2 3 9, 24 4 (1 ) ( 7 9 7 SE2 d 1 60 ) (2 0 1 7 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at io n o m i t ted ).

2 8 Jo n es v. Amer i ca n En vi r ecycl e , 2 17 Ga. Ap p

. 8 0, 83 -8 4 (2 ) (4 5 6 SE2 d 2 6 4 ) (1 9 9 5) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ; em p h as is i n o ri g i n al ).

2 9 OCGA § 1 6 -5 -9 1 (a).

15A co u rt in a d i v o rce act i o n m ay i s s u e a s t an d i ng o rd er wh i ch “ [e] n jo i ns an d res t rai n s

each p art y fro m do i n g or at t em p t i n g t o d o o r t h reat en i n g t o d o an y act wh i ch i n ju res ,

m al t reat s , v i l i fi es , m o l es t s , o r h aras s es ” t h e o t h er p art y

. 3 0

W e co u l d n o t l o cat e, n o r d i d t h e t ri al co u rt o r Ken net h Val ad e ci te, an y cas e in

wh i ch an ag g rav at ed s t a l k i n g c o n v i ct io n was b as ed o n t h e v i o l at i o n o f a d i v o rce

co u rt ’ s s t an d i n g o rd er. In deed

, i t was o nl y aft er t h e d i v o rce co u rt b el o w g r a n t ed a

t em p o rary p ro t ect i v e o rd er t h at t h e co u rt warn ed t h at vi o l at i o n o f t h e ord er co u ld

res u l t i n an arres t fo r ag g rav at ed s t al k i n g

. Acco rd i n g l y , t he law o n wh et h er Ken n et h

Val ad e co ul d b e arres t ed fo r a g g rav at ed s t al k i n g b as ed o n t h e d iv o rce co urt ’ s

s t an d i n g o rd er was n o t wel l s et t l ed

, cl ear, an d wi del y reco g n i zed

. 3 1 W e t h u s rev ers e

t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s den i al of t h e At t o rn ey s ’ m o t io n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n t h i s i s s ue.

Becau s e t h e p art i es an d t h e t ri a l co u rt di d n o t ad dres s Ken n et h Val ad e’ s rem ai n i n g

l eg al m al p ract i ce c l a i m s , we ex p res s n o o p in i on as t o t h e v i ab i l i t y of h i s l eg al

m al p ract i ce cl ai m s p rem i s ed o n ci v i l l i ab i l i t y res ul t i n g fro m Ri m ert ’ s co n ten t i o n s o f

co m m o n l aw i n v as i o n o f p ri v acy

.

3 0 OCGA § 1 9 -1 -1 (b ) (3 ).

3 1 See Ch a t h a m Or t h o

p a ed i c S u r g er y Cen t er v. W

hi t e , 2 8 3 G a. A p p

. 10

, 1 2 (1 ) (6 4 0 SE2 d 6 3 3 ) (2 0 0 6 ); Jo n es , 2 1 7 Ga. Ap p . at 8 4 (2 ).

167

. Gi v en o u r deci s i o n i n Di v i s i o n 6 ab ov e, we n eed n o t ad dres s t h e At t o rn ey s ’

rem ai n i n g cl ai m s o f erro r.

In s u m m ary , we affi r m t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o ns reg ard in g n eg l i g en t

s u p erv i s i o n , OCGA § 1 6-1 1-6 2 (2 ), co m m o n l aw i n v as i o n o f pri v acy , an d OCGA §

1 6 -1 1-6 2 (7 ). W e rev ers e t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n s reg ard i n g OCGA § 16 -1 1 -6 2 (6 )

an d l eg al m al p ract i ce wi t h res pect t o Ken n et h Val ad e’ s arres t

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r med in Ca s e No

. A 2 1 A1 0 1 0

. Ju d g men t a f f i r med i n p a r t a n d

r ever s ed i n p a r t i n Ca s e No

. A2 1 A1 0 11

. Ju d g men t r ever

s ed in Ca s e No

. A2 1 A1 0 1 2.

Do yl e, P. J., a n d

Br o wn , J., co ncu r

.

17