7:4 Defamation

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 7:4 Defamation

Arizona courts have repeatedly stated that there is an absolute privilege against defamation for statements made in connection with judicial proceedings.^[308] In order for the privilege to apply, the alleged defamation must relate to, bear on or be connected with the proceedings.^[309]

After a half dozen published decisions to this effect, attorneys were confident that they were immune from defamation suits by opposing parties for just about any statement which in any way concerned a litigation. Then in 1984, the Arizona Supreme Court handed down Green Acres Trust v. London.^[310]

In Green Acres, a group of attorneys sued a funeral home chain and sought class certification. The attorneys met with a reporter who wrote an article about the funeral home chain, based on statements from the attorneys.^[311] The funeral home chain sued the attorneys for defamation and both the trial court and the Arizona Court of Appeals dismissed, citing the long line of cases protecting an attorney from a defamation claim for statements related to, bearing on or connected with a legal proceeding.

The Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that if the statement was extra-judicial in nature (in other words, made outside of a judicial proceeding) the recipient of the extra-judicial statement must have some relationship to the proposed or pending judicial proceeding for the statement to be absolutely privileged.^[312]

The allegedly defamatory statements in the previously published cases were either made in a judicial proceeding^[313] or were extra judicial statements made to the Commission on Judicial Qualifications,^[314] the State Bar^[315] or the County Recorder^[316] as a part of judicial proceedings or for conduct arising out of same. All were held to be absolutely privileged.

By contrast, the statements in Green Acres were extra judicial statements made to the news media. The supreme court held...