Opinion ID: 2113546
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Judicial Proceedings Privilege Bars this Action.

Text: The trial court ruled that the Ginsberg Complaint was entirely without color because the judicial proceedings privilege barred Ginsberg's claim against opposing counsel. Relying on Savings Bank v. Ward, 100 U.S. 195, 25 L.Ed. 621 (1879), Morowitz v. Marvel, 423 A.2d 196 (D.C. 1980), and Conservative Club of Washington v. Finkelstein, 738 F.Supp. 6 (D.D.C. 1990), the trial court held that the absence of privity of contract precludes suits by a party against opposing counsel. In addition, the trial court concluded that the Ginsberg Complaint constituted vexatious and improper litigation because of clear District of Columbia precedent holding that the judicial proceedings privilege is absolute and applies to all statements made to persons with an interest in or connection to a case made preliminary to a judicial proceeding and related to the proceeding. Ginsberg argues, however, that contrary to the trial court's ruling the judicial proceedings privilege does not provide absolute immunity where a statute such as the FYCA prohibits dissemination or distribution of records. Ginsberg provides no support whatsoever for the proposition that the absolute judicial proceedings privilege is subject to limitation in situations involving set-aside convictions under the FYCA. See generally Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc., 774 A.2d 332, 338 (D.C. 2001) (the [judicial proceedings] privilege is absolute rather than qualified); Arneja v. Gildar, 541 A.2d 621, 623 (D.C.1988) (holding that an attorney is protected by an absolute privilege to publish false and defamatory matter of another during the course of or preliminary to a judicial proceeding, provided the statements bear some relation to the proceeding.) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A statute that imposes no duty on opposing counsel, such as the FYCA, cannot reasonably be argued to limit the absolute immunity provided by the judicial proceedings privilege.