Opinion ID: 2585525
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: promoting zealous advocacy

Text: The ICA has noted that one purpose of the litigation privilege is to force the parties to present their best arguments at trial, stating: The absolute privilege is grounded on the important public policy of securing to attorneys as officers of the court the utmost freedom in their efforts to secure justice for their clients. Restatement § 586 comment a. Thus, it not only protects attorneys in the pursuit of their profession, but also ensures the public's right to zealous legal representation. Counterbalancing this, however, is the equally important public policy of protecting individuals from defamatory statements which are unrelated to the judicial proceeding involved. McCarthy, 5 Haw.App. at 48, 678 P.2d at 14. Similarly, the California Supreme Court has stated that the litigation privilege promotes the effectiveness of judicial proceedings by encouraging attorneys to zealously protect their clients' interests. Silberg, 266 Cal. Rptr. 638, 786 P.2d at 370. Just as participants in litigation must be free to engage in unhindered communication, so too must those participants be free to use their best judgment in prosecuting or defending a lawsuit without fear of having to defend their actions in a subsequent civil action for misconduct. Levin, 639 So.2d at 608. This court has stated that zealous advocacy is a necessary component of our judicial system. Breiner, 89 Hawai`i at 171, 969 P.2d at 1289; see also In re Attorney's Fees of Mohr, 97 Hawai`i 1, 7, 32 P.3d 647, 653 (2001) (noting the policy of this court not to sanction court-appointed attorneys if their arguments on appeal reflect zealous advocacy on behalf of their clients). However, as the ICA has noted, there are limits to how far an attorney should go in representing a client; there is also a requirement that clients be zealously represented `within the bounds of the law.' Myers, 5 Haw.App. at 246, 687 P.2d at 16 (citing Giuliani v. Chuck, 1 Haw.App. 379, 384, 620 P.2d 733, 737 (1980)). Accordingly, even cases upholding the litigation privilege circumscribe its application. For example, the ICA has noted that the purpose of the litigation privilege was to allow attorneys freedom in their efforts to secure justice for their clients. McCarthy, 5 Haw.App. at 48, 678 P.2d at 14. Similarly, the Florida Supreme Court stated that the privilege was intended to allow parties the use of their best judgment in pursuing their claims. Levin, 639 So.2d at 608. Litigation misconduct that amounts to a fraud on the court directly conflicts with the pursuit of justice and never results from a reasonable advocate's best judgment. Thus, the policy of promoting zealous advocacy is counterbalanced by the need to adequately punish and discourage such misconduct. Consequently, the policy of promoting zealous advocacy does not favor limiting liability in subsequent collateral proceedings for fraud.