Utah Supreme Court
Can attorneys make privileged statements to the press about pending litigation? Pratt v. Nelson Explained
Summary
The Pratts sued the Nelsons for defamation based on statements made during a press conference about a lawsuit filed against alleged members of a polygamous religious organization. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants based on the judicial proceeding privilege and group defamation rule.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Utah practitioners often wonder whether the judicial proceeding privilege protects statements made to the media about ongoing litigation. In Pratt v. Nelson, the Utah Supreme Court definitively answered this question with significant implications for attorney conduct during high-profile cases.
Background and Facts
Mary Ann Nelson and her attorneys filed a lawsuit against nearly 400 defendants, including the Pratts, alleging various abuses within a polygamous religious organization. The attorneys then held a press conference where they distributed the complaint to reporters and made statements about the case that reached local, national, and international media outlets. The Pratts subsequently sued for defamation, arguing the press conference statements damaged their reputation.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed three critical issues: whether the invited error doctrine precluded appellate review, whether statements made during the press conference retained protection under the judicial proceeding privilege, and whether the group defamation rule barred the Pratts’ claims.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court held that while the underlying complaint was initially protected by the judicial proceeding privilege, this protection was lost through excessive publication. The court explained that the privilege is designed to promote candid communication between parties and counsel to resolve disputes, not to provide immunity for statements to the press who have no connection to the judicial proceeding. The court emphasized that extending privilege protection to press conferences would “ill-serve the public policy underlying the privilege” and create potential for abuse.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes clear boundaries for attorney communications about pending litigation. While pleadings and communications between parties retain privilege protection, statements to media outlets lose this immunity regardless of their relevance to the underlying case. Attorneys must carefully distinguish between privileged litigation communications and public relations activities that carry potential defamation liability.
Case Details
Case Name
Pratt v. Nelson
Citation
2007 UT 41
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20051167
Date Decided
May 18, 2007
Outcome
Remanded
Holding
The judicial proceeding privilege does not protect statements made to the press during a press conference, even when related to pending litigation, because such statements are excessively published beyond what is necessary to effectuate the privilege’s purpose.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law on summary judgment
Practice Tip
When advising clients about public statements regarding litigation, warn that press conferences and media statements forfeit judicial proceeding privilege protection even if the underlying pleadings would otherwise be privileged.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.