Quick Summary
Jane Linton Kennedy (plaintiff) challenged Robert Powell Cannon (defendant), her alleged rapist’s attorney, for making slanderous statements to a newspaper. The dispute centered around whether Cannon’s statements were protected by privilege and did not constitute slander per se.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland found that Cannon did not have an absolute privilege for his extrajudicial statements and that his actions were not justified under a qualified privilege. Consequently, the court reversed the initial judgment in favor of Cannon and ordered a new trial.
Facts of the Case
Jane Linton Kennedy (plaintiff) was a Caucasian woman who had accused Charles Humphreys, an African American man, of rape. Robert Powell Cannon (defendant), a lawyer, represented Humphreys. Cannon spoke to a local newspaper editor and recounted Humphreys’ claim that the sexual intercourse with Kennedy was consensual, which the newspaper published.
As a result, Kennedy faced harassment and was forced to move out of the state. She filed a lawsuit against Cannon, claiming his communication to the press was slanderous as it falsely accused her of adultery.
Cannon admitted to giving the statement but argued it was necessary to prevent a potential lynching due to the racially charged nature of the case, recalling a similar incident from 25 years prior. He contended that his actions were privileged as he was protecting his client’s interests in response to negative statements made by the prosecution.
Procedural Posture and History
- Cannon provided a statement to the local newspaper regarding his client’s defense.
- The newspaper published an article including Cannon’s statement that implicated Kennedy.
- Kennedy sued Cannon for slander alleging the statement accused her of adultery.
- The trial court granted judgment for Cannon, concluding the statement was privileged.
- Kennedy appealed the trial court’s decision.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the defendant attorney’s statement to the press about his client’s criminal case was privileged, and whether it constituted slander per se against the plaintiff.
Rule of Law
An attorney is granted an absolute privilege for defamatory statements made in the course of judicial proceedings, provided they are relevant to the case. However, this privilege does not extend to extrajudicial statements made to those not involved in the proceeding. A qualified privilege may exist for communications made in protection of a client’s interest but is limited to appropriate parties and circumstances.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed whether Cannon’s statement fell under an absolute privilege as part of a judicial proceeding. They concluded that while judicial proceedings had commenced with Humphreys’ arrest, not all statements by an attorney after such commencement are privileged.
The court determined that Cannon had no absolute privilege because his statement was not made as part of the judicial proceeding itself but rather to the press, which is outside the scope of absolute privilege.
Furthermore, the court considered whether a qualified privilege based on attorney-client relationship existed. It found that while there may be a qualified privilege for communications made to protect a client’s rights, such privilege does not justify defamatory statements made to inappropriate parties like the press.
The court held that Cannon’s legal duty did not extend to making defamatory statements in the newspaper and that he had other proper legal avenues to protect his client’s interests without resorting to slanderous remarks.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded for a new trial, holding that the defendant’s statement was not privileged and should have been considered by the jury.
Key Takeaways
- Attorneys do not have absolute privilege for statements made outside judicial proceedings, even if related to their client’s case.
- A qualified privilege may exist for attorney-client communications but is limited to appropriate parties and circumstances and does not extend to public statements to the press.
- When an attorney’s extrajudicial statements are slanderous per se, they can lead to civil liability unless appropriately privileged.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What are the limits of attorney-client privilege in regards to communication with third parties?
Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between an attorney and their client. However, this privilege does not extend to third parties unless the communication is for the purpose of providing legal advice and is intended to remain confidential. Disclosure to third parties not involved in the legal representation can waive the privilege.
- For example: If a client shares privileged information with a friend who is not part of the legal team, that communication may no longer be protected.
Under what circumstances can qualified privilege for defamatory statements be overridden?
Qualified privilege can be overridden if the plaintiff can demonstrate that the defendant acted with malice or ill will, or if the statements were not made in good faith within the scope of protecting a legitimate interest.
- For example: If a former employer provides a negative reference out of personal spite rather than honest performance assessment, the qualified privilege might not apply.
How do courts determine whether a defamatory statement is slander per se?
Courts consider whether a statement falls into categories that are considered inherently damaging, such as allegations of crime, loathsome disease, professional incompetence, or impropriety in a person’s trade or profession. In these cases, damage to reputation is presumed without needing to prove actual harm.
- For example: Accusing a doctor of malpractice publicly without evidence can be classified as slander per se, as it impugns their professional competence.
References
Was this case brief helpful?