Court Opinion

ID: 9765462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:03:25.912457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:10.216305
License: Public Domain

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
dissenting.
I must dissent from the Majority’s conclusion that the subject communication was not sent in the regular course of preparing for contemplated proceedings against Appellant. A reading of the communication indicates, in the clearest *225possible language, that the letter itself was notice to Appellant that Appellee was filing charges against him with the Disciplinary Board. The letter itself is the formal complaint against Appellant which was forwarded to the Board. The copies of the letter to the trial judge and Dr. Simon were pertinent, material, and in the regular course of procedure because these individuals were involved in the alleged improper conduct of Appellant and could very well be called upon by the Disciplinary Board in its investigation of Appellee’s complaint. Accordingly, they clearly had an interest in the proceedings which might ensue before the Disciplinary Board. I would hold this communication protected as made prior to the institution of proceedings (Restatement of Torts, § 586) and would affirm the order of Superior Court.