205 Conn.App. 660
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Plaintiff Ammar A. Idlibi (self-represented) sued defense attorney Jeremiah N. A. Ollennu for conduct during representation of Idlibi’s ex-wife, Katie Conroy, in their marital dissolution.
- Idlibi alleged Ollennu notarized a fraudulent interrogatory response denying Conroy’s affair, coached Conroy to falsely tell a police detective that Idlibi assaulted her, and failed to correct her sworn false testimony.
- Following the dissolution judgment (affirmed on appeal) and a denied motion to open that judgment, Idlibi filed this tort suit (Dec. 2018) asserting abuse of process, legal malpractice, malicious prosecution, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The superior court dismissed the entire complaint, citing (1) no attorney–client relationship between Idlibi and Ollennu (so no malpractice standing) and (2) the litigation privilege/absolute immunity as barring the other tort claims.
- Idlibi appealed the dismissal; the appellate court reviewed the pleadings de novo, taking allegations as true and considering limits of the litigation privilege.
- The appellate court reversed the dismissal as to abuse of process and malicious prosecution, and affirmed dismissal for legal malpractice (lack of standing) and both emotional distress claims (barred by litigation privilege).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abuse of process | Ollennu used interrogatories and court process to present false evidence and win the case | Conduct is privileged litigation advocacy/absolute immunity | Reversed: abuse of process claim not barred by litigation privilege |
| Legal malpractice | Ollennu breached professional duties by notarizing false response and counseling false testimony | No attorney–client relationship with Idlibi; therefore no standing | Affirmed: Idlibi lacked standing to sue for malpractice |
| Malicious prosecution | Ollennu procured criminal proceedings by counseling Conroy to mislead police | Conduct is privileged litigation activity/absolute immunity | Reversed: malicious prosecution claim not barred by litigation privilege |
| Negligent & intentional infliction of emotional distress | Ollennu’s conduct at police meeting directly caused severe emotional distress | Conduct occurred in attorney role and is privileged | Affirmed: emotional distress claims barred by litigation privilege |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 (establishes litigation privilege and its limits; abuse of process and malicious prosecution not absolutely immune)
- Mozzochi v. Beck, 204 Conn. 490 (attorneys not absolutely immune for abuse of process claims)
- Mayer v. Biafore, Florek & O’Neill, 245 Conn. 88 (legal malpractice requires an attorney–client relationship for standing)
- Petyan v. Ellis, 200 Conn. 243 (litigation privilege applies to intentional infliction of emotional distress claims)
- Stone v. Pattis, 144 Conn. App. 79 (litigation privilege applies to negligent infliction of emotional distress claims)
- Perugini v. Giuliano, 148 Conn. App. 861 (discusses policy basis for protecting attorney advocacy under litigation privilege)