Richmond v. McHale
35 A.3d 779
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant Kenneth Richmond, Esq., led the plaintiffs in the federal civil action 2:08-cv-03805 alleging sexual abuse of a minor and fiduciary breaches by guardians.
- In December 2009, Appellee McHale and other Stradley Ronon attorneys substituted in as defense counsel in the federal action.
- A December 23, 2009 meeting occurred at Richmond’s office among Richmond, McHale, and other defense counsel to discuss a discovery issue.
- During the meeting, Richmond sought a physical examination of McHale’s client; McHale declined and allegedly accused Richmond of attempting to extort money.
- Richmond filed a complaint on November 12, 2010 alleging that McHale’s comments were made maliciously to induce fear of criminal prosecution and damaged his professional reputation.
- McHale filed preliminary objections arguing absolute privilege and that the statements were not defamatory as a matter of law; the trial court granted the objections and sustained them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the meeting was a judicial proceeding triggering absolute privilege. | Richmond argues the meeting wasn’t a judicial proceeding. | McHale contends the discussion was part of a judicial discovery context and protected. | Yes; statements were absolutely privileged under judicial proceedings. |
| Whether Appellant’s defamation claim is barred by waiver of the second defense. | Richmond argues the defenses should be raised differently; not waived. | McHale contends procedural waiver via failure to object to improper pleading. | Second defense waived; only privilege issue addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pelagatti v. Cohen, 370 Pa.Super. 422 (Pa. Super. 1987) (privilege extends to communications pertinent to any stage of judicial proceedings)
- Post v. Mendel, 510 Pa. 213 (Pa. 1986) (absolute privilege for communications in judicial proceedings)
- Binder v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 442 Pa. 319 (Pa. 1971) (absolute privilege for communications in judicial context)
- Greenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co., 427 Pa. 511 (Pa. 1967) (privilege extended to communications during judicial proceedings; broader protection)
- Pawlowski v. Smorto, 403 Pa.Super. 71 (Pa. Super. 1991) (privilege applies to evections between counsel; defamation claim barred if privileged)