You are here: / / Attorney’s Defamation Suit Against Client Based Upon Letters Sent to t...
, ,

Attorney’s Defamation Suit Against Client Based Upon Letters Sent to the Attorney by the Client Dismissed

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, the First Department determined that letters written by a client to an attorney, terminating the attorney’s employment, were not actionable under a defamation theory for three reasons: the statements constituted opinion; the statements were absolutely privileged; and the statements were qualifiedly privileged.  With respect to qualified privilege, the First Department wrote:

…[T]he statements contained in defendants’ letters would be subject to a qualified privilege as communications upon a subject matter in which both parties had an interest … . “The shield provided by a qualified privilege may be dissolved if plaintiff can demonstrate that defendant [made the statement] with malice,'” which may mean either spite or ill will, or knowledge that the statement was false or made in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity … . The statement must have been made with a proper purpose, and publication must be in a proper manner and to proper parties only … .

A client’s letter to an attorney terminating the attorney’s services and explaining the client’s perceived grounds for the termination qualifies as a communication on a subject in which sender and recipient have a shared interest. Where the letter is sent only to the attorney, and access to its contents is limited to the recipient and the defendant (which includes any of defendant’s employees who assisted in its preparation), proper publication is established as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s bare allegations of malice are insufficient to prevent dismissal on this ground.

“The threat of being put to the defense of a lawsuit . . . may be as chilling to the exercise of First Amendment freedoms as fear of the outcome of the lawsuit itself” … . As a matter of public policy, which should protect open and honest communication between attorneys and their clients, clients must be permitted to make such claims, or complaints, directly to their attorneys, and to their attorneys alone, without threat of a lawsuit. Frechtman v Gutterman, 2014 NY slip Op 00437, 1st Dept 1-23-14

 

You might also like
SCAFFOLD DID NOT HAVE A SAFETY RAILING, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
Question of Fact Whether Defendant’s Negligence Precluded Her Reliance on the Doctrine of Mutual Mistake to Rescind a Valid Oral Contract
DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRODUCE A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO DEPICTING PLAINTIFF’S ACCIDENT UNTIL AFTER PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION; DEFENDANTS ARE PRECLUDED FROM INTRODUCING THE VIDEO IN EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED.
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED ON DEBRIS AND FELL INTO A TWO-TO-THREE-FOOT-DEEP PIT FROM WHICH THE PLYWOOD COVER HAD BEEN REMOVED TRIGGERING POTENTIAL LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); ONE DEFENDANT MAY BE LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER WITH SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY; TWO DEFENDANTS MAY BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 FOR THE DANGEROUS CONDITIONS; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT GYM DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ACCUMULATION OF DUST ON THE BASKETBALL COURT FLOOR WAS INHERENT IN THE SPORT OR OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Even If Information About Prosecution Witness’ Recent Drug Sales Had Been Withheld in Violation of Brady/Giglio, the Withheld Information Was Not “Material” In That It Would Not Have Affected the Outcome
AN INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER, AS OPPOSED TO THE CORPORATION, CAN NOT BE HELD STRICTLY LIABLE FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW UNLESS THE OFFICER ENCOURAGED, CONDONED OR APPROVED THE SPECIFIC DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT; COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CORPORATE OFFICER DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

What To Do If the District Attorney Does Not Wish to Prosecute But the Judge... Supreme Court’s Reliance On a Punctuation Error to Support Its Contract Interpretation...