Opinion ID: 2555874
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statements Made in a Judicial Proceeding.

Text: Although an understated principle in our caselaw, the application of an absolute privilege differs depending on whether the putative tortfeasor is a witness/ party/ judge, or an attorney of record in the case. For witnesses, parties, and judges, we employ the English rule, which provides that the putative tortfeasor enjoys absolute immunity from civil liability, even if the statement is wholly unrelated to the underlying proceeding. See Keys, 303 Md. at 404, 494 A.2d at 203 (We [follow] the minority or `English' rule which afford[s] the absolute privilege to witnesses and parties without the necessity of demonstrating the relevance of the statement to the pending litigation. (citing Korb v. Kowaleviocz, 285 Md. 699, 402 A.2d 897 (1979) (emphasis added))); Adams v. Peck, 43 Md.App. 168, 173, 403 A.2d 840, 843 (1979) ([N]ote that the English decisions relied upon all dealt with words spoken from the witness stand.). For attorneys whose appearances are entered in a case, however, we follow the majority American rule and require that the defamatory statement have some rational relation to the matter at bar before unfurling the umbrella of absolute privilege. See Korb, 285 Md. at 702, 402 A.2d at 898 (It was perfectly competent for this court . . . to follow and adopt the. . . American decisions in regard to the privilege of the advocate, and to follow and adopt the rule of the English courts as regards the privilege of the witness. (quoting Hunckel v. Voneiff, 69 Md. 179, 198-99, 14 A. 500, 505 (1888))); [14] see also Adams v. Peck, 288 Md. 1, 3 n. 1, 415 A.2d 292, 293 n. 1 (1980) (Defamatory statements made by judges, parties and witnesses are absolutely privileged even though they have no relation to the judicial proceeding. However, an attorney's defamatory statement is absolutely privileged only if it has some relation to the judicial proceeding.). The privilege extends not only to defamatory statements made in the courtroom during the course of the trial, but also to such statements published in documents which have been filed in a judicial proceeding. Adams, 288 Md. at 3, 415 A.2d at 293 (citations omitted). In any case, the putative tortfeasor is protected even if his [or her] purpose or motive was malicious, he [or she] knew that the statement was false, or his [or her] conduct was otherwise unreasonable. Id. We give the privilege a broad and comprehensive interpretation, so as to foster the `free and unfettered administration of justice.' Keys, 303 Md. at 404, 494 A.2d at 203. The ultimate purpose of the judicial process is to determine the truth. Adams, 288 Md. at 5, 415 A.2d at 294.