Litigation Privilege, Attorney Immunity and Ethics: Defending Retaliatory Suits and Ethics Complaints When attorneys seek to gain an advantage by disclosing or threatening to disclose embarrassing secrets, illegal activity, deny facts known to be true, or otherwise cause fear to the opposing party, they are more frequently being sued for defamation, bad faith, intentional interference with contractual or beneficial relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, or the like.Sometimes these types of activities are absolutely privileged and sometimes they are only entitled to partial immunity. Much depends on when and where the statements are made and how state courts define “litigation.”Regardless of civil liability, such conduct can lead to ethics complaints. Model Ruel 4.1 attempts to set some boundaries, but it offers no bright line rule. Landry’s Inc., et al. v. Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al (Tex., No. 19-0036, June 15, 2021), and Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn 582 (2022), are just two illustrations of the risks lawyers face if they utilize these tactics.Listen as our experienced panel of litigators assists counsel in understanding the judicial proceedings privilege and attorney immunity and the limits of MR 4.1. Outline Statutory authority and procedural requirements Strategies for plaintiffs Avoiding federal question Avoiding diversity, pre- and post-filing Federal question issues as counterclaims; Home Depot v. Jackson Amending the complaint Strategies for defendants Contractual forum selection Snap removal [...]