Background
During a pending Cook County small-claims suit over personal property removed from a condominium storage unit, attorney Jonathan Mraunac represented the plaintiff. Amit Trivedi, then an attorney employed by the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA), appeared pro se and stated that he represented himself and two codefendants.
Mraunac sent a letter to CHA’s chief legal officer stating that Trivedi did not appear to be registered to privately practice law through a law firm and expressing concern that he was moonlighting and practicing without malpractice insurance. CHA terminated Trivedi, though it later reinstated him. Trivedi sued Mraunac & Associates for tortious interference with his employment relationship and defamation. The circuit court dismissed the defamation claim and, on reconsideration, dismissed the tortious-interference claim with prejudice under the absolute litigation privilege.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the tortious-interference claim and remanded. It held that the absolute litigation privilege can apply beyond defamation claims, including to a tortious-interference claim premised on the same allegedly defamatory statements.
But the privilege did not protect this letter because it was sent to CHA, an entity unrelated to the small-claims litigation. CHA’s status as Trivedi’s employer did not connect it to the underlying dispute or proceedings. Because the third-party-recipient issue was dispositive, the court did not decide whether the letter’s statements were pertinent to the small-claims case.
Key Takeaways
- Illinois’ absolute litigation privilege may be raised against non-defamation claims based on allegedly defamatory attorney communications.
- The privilege does not extend to communications directed to a third party with no connection to the underlying litigation.
- A litigant’s employer is not connected to the litigation merely because the litigant works there.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a boundary around the broad protection afforded to attorney speech in litigation. An attorney’s communication must remain tied to the litigation and its participants; sending allegations to an unrelated employer can leave the sender exposed to claims arising from the communication.