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
- 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.