Opinion ID: 1825990
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: are the letters absolutely privileged as a matter of law?

Text: [13] Having held that the letters are capable of a defamatory meaning and that the defense of conditional privilege is unavailable on demurrer, our attention goes to Condes' contention that the letters are absolutely privileged as a matter of law because they were written by an attorney of record in a pending lawsuit and published preliminary to and during the course of such lawsuit. Wisconsin adheres to the so-called American rule of absolute judicial immunity from liability for libel or slander. [17] This rule requires that for such privilege to attach the statements made must (1) be relevant to the matter being considered in the judicial proceedings, and (2) be made in a procedural context which is recognized as affording absolute privilege. [18] Since both of the letters and the lawsuits relate to the disclosure of trade secrets and infringement of patent rights, the test of relevancy is met. The dispositive question is whether the two letters are published in a procedural context that brings them within the absolute privilege rule. [14-16] In a variety of situations this court has found absolutely privileged statements made by parties, witnesses and counsel during the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. [19] Similarly, this court has held to be absolutely privileged statements made during investigatory proceedings preliminary to the commencement of a criminal prosecution. [20] However in every case in which this court has found a statement made preliminary to or during the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings to be absolutely privileged, both the maker of the statement and the recipient were involved in and closely connected with the proceedings. [21] Moreover, in each such prior finding of absolute privilege, the publication was made as part of the judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding involved. [22] It should be clear and, if not, here made clear, that such a nexus between the publication and the proceeding must exist for the procedural context requirement of the absolutely privileged rule to be met. Cases elsewhere support this holding that for the absolute privilege to attach the statement at issue must have been published on an occasion or in a context which is an integral part of the judicial or quasijudicial proceeding involved. [23] In the case before us, since none of the recipients of the letters are connected with the lawsuits and since neither of the two letters were written as an integral part of the judicial proceedings, we agree with the trial court that the proper procedural context requirement of the absolute privilege rule is not here met.