A medical-malpractice plaintiffs’ lawyer has brought a second suit, this one against the attorney for the defendant, arguing that the questions asked at a deposition inflicted emotional distress on his client. (Lisa Brennan, NJ Law Journal, Jul. 25 (via Scheuerman)).
This suit may well fall into the “Be careful what you ask for” category. If a defense attorney can be liable for exploring whether a plaintiff has responsibility for a decedent’s fatal head injury, why can’t a defendant doctor sue a plaintiffs’ attorney when accused of the same thing? (Note the plaintiffs’-attorney commenter who told one doctor to suck it up.) Odds are the whole matter gets dismissed on grounds of the litigation privilege, the idea that immunity is appropriate lest attorneys be deterred from litigating on behalf of their clients. One only wishes that the same principle would be applied to other situations, such as doctors being deterred from practicing medicine. Earlier: POL Jun. 20, 2006.
5 Comments
No litigation privilege in that state? No anti-SLAPP statute?
You each owe me a million dollars. If you question that statement, you will make me very sad and that will cost you two million, you monsters.
Small bills, please. Tell no one.
One of the big concerns for myself and other physicians is the emotional distress that comes with bogus lawsuits. Can this be a basis for countersuits?
Perhaps someone should tell the jurors at this trial.
Okay…I have a question here: Isn’t the point of a deposition to sort of ‘sound out’ the other side during discovery? See how strong the case is?