Opinion ID: 2632314
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Oshins' statements to Dr. Richard Lewin

Text: Fink also challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment insofar as it precluded him from asserting a claim that Oshins defamed him in conversations with Dr. Richard Lewin. Fink alleges that Oshins defamed him during various meetings between Oshins and Dr. Lewin as they were discussing matters pertaining to Dr. Lewin's own trust. The conversations took place at various times over the course of the summer and fall of 1996. Oshins is alleged to have made comments to Dr. Lewin regarding Fink's past drug-abuse problems as well as his actions involving the St. James trust. Dr. Lewin stated that Oshins' comments led [him] to believe that Mr. Oshins felt that perhaps Mr. Fink was not very honest in some of his dealings with Timothy St. James. For instance, during one of their conversations, Oshins purportedly told Dr. Lewin, Don [Fink] is interfering with Denise getting her funds. Dr. Lewin also believed that Oshins called Fink a thief, but he was not sure whether that was actually stated or simply implied by the conversation. The district court concluded that these statements were covered by the absolute privilege. Illuminating its reasoning, the district court explained, [A]s to Dr. Lewin, we would be hard pressed to conduct the day-to-day business affairs that attorneys conduct if I would rule otherwise. Oshins raises various arguments defending the district court's determination. Oshins first contends that the district court properly applied the absolute privilege in his favor. An attorney's statements to someone who is not directly involved with the actual or anticipated judicial proceeding will be covered by the absolute privilege only if the recipient of the communication is significantly interested in the proceeding. [20] Attempting to bring Dr. Lewin within this parameter, Oshins explains that he discussed Denise's dispute with Dr. Lewin so that Dr. Lewin, as Denise's counselor, family doctor, and distant relative, [21] would be able to help her cope with the stress caused by her dispute with Fink. Additionally, Oshins asserts that he was advising Dr. Lewin, as his client, to avoid Fink because Dr. Lewin was considering involving Fink in the insurance elements of his own trust. But we conclude that even a liberal application does not bring Oshins' statements to Dr. Lewin within the scope of the absolute privilege. Although Oshins may have indeed acted out of concern for Denise's psychological well-being or Dr. Lewin's financial matters, it is quite evident that Dr. Lewin played no significant role and had no significant interest in Denise's efforts to remove Fink as the independent trustee. Thus, Oshins' statements to Dr. Lewin will be protected, if at all, by a conditional privilege, [22] a defense that may develop further on remand. [23] Oshins also asserts that his statements regarding Fink's drug abuse and interference with the St. James trust were true and therefore non-actionable. We have previously stated, however, that the truth or falsity of an allegedly defamatory statement is an issue of fact properly left to the jury for resolution. [24] In a similar vein, Oshins argues that, due to Dr. Lewin's uncertainty as to whether Oshins called Fink a thief, a fact finder would have to speculate as to whether the statement was actually made. This argument is unavailing, however, because even assuming Dr. Lewin merely inferred that Oshins was calling Fink a thief from the context of their conversations, that may be enough to establish defamation. [25]