## Facts

- A law firm and one of its attorneys represented a plaintiff in a negligence action.
- Defense counsel in that negligence action filed a counterclaim that the plaintiffs in this case alleged was knowingly meritless and filed for retaliation and intimidation rather than to obtain legitimate relief.
- The counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice, and no appeal was taken from that dismissal.
- The pleadings alleged that, during the same period, defense counsel sent hostile and insulting communications to opposing counsel, allegedly connected to an unrelated criminal case involving one defense attorney and a witness related to opposing counsel.
- The negligence case proceeded through arbitration (with a favorable result for the original plaintiff) and later resolved by settlement after further litigation activity.
- The plaintiff law firm and attorney later sued defense counsel and the defense law firm for wrongful use of civil proceedings under the Dragonetti Act and for common-law abuse of process, focusing on the filing and use of the counterclaim.
- The trial court sustained preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and dismissed the complaint on the ground that judicial privilege barred the claims.

## Issues

1. Whether judicial privilege categorically bars a Dragonetti Act claim against attorneys based on filing an allegedly baseless counterclaim in a judicial proceeding.
2. Whether judicial privilege bars a common-law abuse-of-process claim premised on alleged misuse of a counterclaim for retaliation or intimidation.
3. Whether, accepting the pleaded facts as true, the complaint stated legally sufficient claims that should survive dismissal at the demurrer stage.

## Decision

- The Superior Court reversed the order sustaining preliminary objections and dismissing the complaint.
- The court held that judicial privilege, as applied by the trial court, could not be used as a blanket immunity to defeat the asserted Dragonetti Act claim.
- The court concluded that the pleaded facts, taken as true with reasonable inferences, were sufficient to state claims for wrongful use of civil proceedings and abuse of process.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial privilege protects certain litigation-related communications, but it is not an all-purpose bar against civil liability for litigation conduct in all forms.
- A common-law privilege should not be construed to nullify a statutory cause of action that specifically authorizes liability for wrongful use of civil proceedings, including conduct by attorneys.
- On preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, courts must accept well-pleaded facts as true and may dismiss only when it is clear that no recovery is possible under any legal theory consistent with those facts.
- A Dragonetti Act claim may proceed where the complaint plausibly alleges initiation or continuation of civil proceedings without probable cause and primarily for an improper purpose.
- An abuse-of-process claim may proceed where the complaint plausibly alleges use of legal process primarily to accomplish a collateral purpose for which the process was not designed, and it is not defeated solely because the process occurred within litigation.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated claims alleging that defense counsel used an allegedly baseless counterclaim as a retaliatory and intimidating tool, holding that judicial privilege did not warrant dismissal at the pleading stage and remanding for further proceedings on the Dragonetti and abuse-of-process theories.


Freundlich & Littman, LLC v. Feierstein, 157 A.3d 526 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017)