## Facts

- Peter R. Adams and Caryl W. Adams were parties to a contested divorce and custody/visitation dispute in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.
- Under a separation agreement, the mother had custody of the couple’s two young sons, and Adams had visitation.
- The mother, concerned about continued visitation, consulted her divorce attorney, who referred her and the children to psychiatrist Alan H. Peck, M.D., for an evaluation related to the custody/visitation controversy.
- Peck interviewed the mother and at least one child and prepared a written report addressed to the mother’s attorney.
- The report stated, in substance, that Adams had sexually abused a child, that Adams had mental or emotional problems requiring treatment, and that Adams’s visitation should be terminated.
- The mother’s attorney filed a petition in the divorce action seeking to modify visitation; Peck’s report was prepared for use in that litigation.
- Adams denied the allegations and sued Peck for libel based on statements in the report.

## Issues

1. Whether a psychiatrist’s written report to counsel, prepared in connection with pending custody/visitation litigation and relevant to issues in that litigation, is protected by absolute privilege so as to bar a defamation action.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland held the report was absolutely privileged as a communication made in connection with and in furtherance of a judicial proceeding.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for Peck, precluding Adams’s defamation claim.
- The court rejected limiting protection to a qualified privilege subject to defeat by proof of malice.

## Legal Principles

- Absolute privilege in judicial proceedings protects relevant statements by participants (including witnesses) from defamation liability to secure uninhibited, candid communication necessary to the administration of justice.
- The privilege extends beyond in-court testimony and pleadings to communications preliminary to or in preparation for litigation, including expert reports to counsel, if they bear a reasonable relation to the subject matter of the proceeding.
- The protection applies when the proceeding is pending or seriously contemplated in good faith and the communication is made in connection with and in furtherance of that proceeding.

## Conclusion

A psychiatrist’s expert evaluation and report prepared for counsel for use in an ongoing custody/visitation dispute is absolutely privileged when it reasonably relates to issues in that litigation, thereby barring defamation liability for statements in the report.


Adams v. Peck, 288 Md. 1, 415 A.2d 292 (Md. 1980)