HARTFORD, Conn. (Legal Newsline) - A lawyer who was sued by a former associate after mailing anonymous letters to news outlets accusing him of beating his wife deserves a chance at having the suit dismissed under a law protecting speech about matters of public concern, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled.
The high court reversed an appeals court’s refusal to consider a trial judge’s denial of a motion to dismiss under the Connecticut anti-SLAPP statute (for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). That law allows defendants to obtain quick dismissal of lawsuits if they involve free speech. The law includes a right of immediate appeal after a court issues a final judgment denying a motion to dismiss.
The lawsuit has roots in a dispute between Timothy Brignole of Brignole, Bush & Lewis and J. Xavier Pryor, a former associate. Brignole sued Pryor and he settled in 2015 by paying his former firm $45,000. The settlement included a non-disparagement clause prohibiting Brignole from doing or saying anything that could harm Pryor’s “interests or reputation.”
Three months later, Pryor was arrested and charged with assaulting a child. Brignole then “sent or caused to be sent” anonymous letters to news outlets with the headline “Attorney Beats Wife In Front of Child,” according to the Supreme Court record.
The letter identified Pryor by name, gave his date of birth and office address and said his conduct was a matter of public concern because it implicated his fitness to practice law and the judicial system might cover it up to protect a fellow lawyer. Brignole sent the letters with Pryor’s office address as the return address.
Pryor sued Brignole and his law firm, claiming the letters violated the non-disparagement clause of their settlement. The defendants then moved to dismiss under Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP law, citing “the right of free speech in connection with a matter of public concern.”
The trial court denied the motion in August 2020, saying Brignole denied sending the letters and thus “denied engaging in any speech at all, protected or not.” An appeals court refused to reverse the denial after the plaintiff argued there was no appealable final judgment to rule upon.
The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed to review the decision, and in a May 9 ruling, reversed.
First, the court held that the anti-SLAPP statute provides for immediate appeal of court’s denial of summary judgment. Next, the court said speech involving a “matter of public concern” includes allegations of unethical behavior by a regulated professional and crimes are “without question events of legitimate concern to the public.”
Courts elsewhere have also ruled anti-SLAPP laws apply when the defendant denied making the statements in question, reasoning that the first step of the analysis is to determine whether the speech involves matters of public concern. That means the defendants had presented a “colorable claim” of protection under the law, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled.
Brignole made “at least a superficially well founded claim that the conduct alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint — namely, Brignole’s sending letters to `various news outlets and persons’ concerning the arrest and prosecution of an attorney—could be considered conduct furthering communication in a public forum on a matter of public concern,” the court concluded.