Ernesto Martinez, Jr. v. Hellmich Law Group, P.C.
681 F. App'x 323
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Martinez sued Hellmich Law Group (HLG) alleging HLG and a former client (Arriola) solicited Martinez’s clients with false statements to induce them to join claims against Martinez (claims: interference with contracts, conspiracy to interfere, business disparagement, defamation).
- Martinez alleged HLG sent letters and called clients in August 2014 asserting HLG had been retained to pursue litigation/arbitration for overbilling; some clients reported being solicited or “hounded.”
- HLG moved to dismiss and for summary judgment asserting an absolute judicial‑proceedings privilege under Texas law because communications were made in connection with a proposed arbitration HLG was investigating on behalf of existing clients (Arriola and Klingerman).
- HLG submitted affidavits and documents showing (1) it represented Arriola/Klingerman in investigating billing, (2) it informed other Halprin clients after those clients contacted HLG or requested contact, (3) it filed an arbitration on behalf of some clients and obtained a $250,000 award against Martinez.
- The district court denied dismissal and summary judgment, viewing the communications as client solicitation and finding the privilege not established on the record; HLG appealed under the collateral order doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HLG’s communications are absolutely privileged under Texas law | Martinez: statements were solicitations to recruit clients and thus not privileged | HLG: statements related to investigation and anticipated arbitration for existing clients, so privileged | Court: Privileged — statements bore relation to proposed arbitration and were in furtherance of representation |
| Whether privilege applies to communications made to prospective clients (solicitation) | Martinez: solicitation to new clients removes privilege | HLG: context shows communications were to parties similarly situated to existing clients about a planned quasi‑judicial proceeding | Court: Context controls; privilege extends where communications relate to and further a proposed proceeding, even if to prospective clients |
| Whether non‑defamation torts based on the communications (interference, conspiracy) are barred by the privilege | Martinez: tort claims independent and not just defamation | HLG: claims arise from privileged communications and thus barred | Court: Privilege applies to claims whose essence is harms flowing from privileged communications; those tort claims are barred |
| Whether a good‑faith requirement applies to assert privilege for interference/conspiracy claims | Martinez (implicitly): HLG must show good faith in threat/filing of proceedings | HLG: did act in good faith; investigated and filed meritorious arbitration | Court: If good faith required, HLG met it (investigation and successful arbitration); International Shortstop does not control here |
Key Cases Cited
- Russell v. Clark, 620 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981) (articulates attorney absolute privilege for communications related to proposed or ongoing judicial proceedings)
- Shell Oil Co. v. Writt, 464 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2015) (discusses witness privilege in judicial‑proceedings context and relevance of proposed proceedings)
- Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767 (Tex. 1994) (absolute privilege can bar non‑defamation claims when damages are essentially defamation‑based)
- International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir. 1991) (discusses privilege to interfere with another’s contract in bona fide furtherance of one’s rights; court distinguished its applicability here)
- Crain v. Smith, 22 S.W.3d 58 (Tex. App. 2000) (pre‑complaint attorney communications can be absolutely privileged when related to planned litigation)