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

Heading: Statements Made in a Quasi-Judicial Proceeding.

Text: Likewise, a decision-maker/adjudicator, witness, or party in a quasi -judicial proceeding who makes a defamatory statement in the proceeding is shielded by the privilege, if the proceeding satisfies the two part test of Gersh v. Ambrose, 291 Md. 188, 434 A.2d 547 (1981). To don also the protective armor of the privilege, an attorney of record must demonstrate additionally that his or her statement was relevant to the matter at hand. In Gersh, a witness before the Baltimore City Community Relations Commission alleged that a commission staff member committed obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury. Gersh, 291 Md. at 189, 434 A.2d at 547. The witness, Gersh, argued that he was protected by the absolute privilege because he was speaking as a witness at a public hearing and . . . his statements were made in response to questions asked him at this hearing. Gersh, 291 Md. at 189, 434 A.2d at 548. We held that the absolute privilege applies only to certain types of administrative proceedings. In sorting out which types of proceedings merit this protection, we probe: (1) the nature of the public function of the proceeding and (2) the adequacy of procedural safeguards which will minimize the occurrence of defamatory statements. Gersh, 291 Md. at 197, 434 A.2d at 552. In other words, we examine the significance of the public interest sought to be advanced and the protective trial-like attributes of the proceeding. Gersh, 291 Md. at 196, 434 A.2d at 551; see id. (stating that the two factors balance the public's interest in full disclosure with the harm of subjecting the individual to possible legal injury without remedy). Because the administrative hearing in Gersh before the Baltimore City Community Relations Commissionneither advanced a sufficiently compelling public interest nor possessed suitable procedural safeguards, we rejected extending the absolute privilege. See id.; see also McDermott v. Hughley, 317 Md. 12, 26, 561 A.2d 1038, 1045 (1989) (holding that the absolute privilege did not apply to a psychiatrist who, after meeting with a park police officer, issued a defamatory report because there were insufficient procedural safeguards during the meeting).