High Court Upholds Lawyer Immunity : Legal doctrine: The state justices keep in place a privilege that protects the actions of attorneys, judges and witnesses during courtroom proceedings.

The state Supreme Court, strongly reaffirming a century-old legal doctrine, refused Monday to allow a lawyer to be sued for improperly assigning a key role in a divorce case to a psychologist with whom she allegedly was romantically involved.

The court unanimously upheld the broad immunity from civil lawsuits that has long protected lawyers, litigants, witnesses and judges for what they say or do during legal proceedings.

The justices threw out an $11-million damage suit brought by a Santa Rosa physician against his former wife’s attorney for allegedly seeking an unfair advantage for her client and providing business for her lover--a psychologist that the lawyer had said would provide neutral counseling and independent evaluations in the couple’s dissolution proceeding.

The physician charged in the suit that he had been denied reasonable visitation rights to his children and suffered damage to his reputation because of a critical and defamatory report by the psychologist.

In ordering dismissal of the suit, the high court invoked the “litigation privilege,” first recognized in 1872 as a means of ensuring free and vigorous legal proceedings without fear of civil liability. Under the doctrine, even bribing a witness has been held immune from suit, although the act may be prosecuted as a criminal offense. In addition, unethical conduct by a lawyer may be grounds for discipline by the State Bar.

The justices disapproved a series of appeals-court rulings that over the years had permitted an exception to legal immunity when the “interests of justice” are at stake.

“It is, of course, true that ‘justice’ in the sense of ‘fairness’ is not served where an attorney seeks to deceive a party into relying on an expert by misrepresenting the expert’s impartiality,” retired Justice Marcus M. Kaufman, sitting temporarily by special assignment, wrote for the court Monday.

“However, the evils inherent in permitting (civil suits) based on communications during the trial of a previous action are . . . far more destructive to the administration of justice than an occasional ‘unfair’ result.”

Kaufman said that permitting such suits could “inundate” the court system with follow-up claims by litigants who had lost their original cases.

William B. Daniels II of Sebastopol, the lawyer for the Santa Rosa physician, expressed disappointment with the ruling and said he hoped that the Legislature will consider revising the law to aid victims of unethical acts by attorneys.

“Criminal actions or bar discipline proceedings usually do not provide a sufficient remedy for someone who has suffered a substantial economic loss,” Daniels said.

The attorney for the lawyer who had been sued declined comment. However, Steven G. Drapkin, an attorney who represented psychiatrists and psychologists appointed to serve in child-custody cases in Los Angeles Superior Court, said the ruling “should put an abrupt end to the increasingly common retaliatory and vindictive lawsuits.”

The dispute before the justices emerged in 1985 from a divorce case involving Barry Neil Silberg, a plastic surgeon, and his wife, Janet. Silberg and his attorney asked that a psychologist be retained to recommend child-custody and visitation arrangements and counsel family members.

According to Silberg’s suit, his wife’s attorney, Margaret Anderson, recommended Robert E. Adler of Santa Rosa, a psychologist Anderson said was both qualified and independent. Later, Silberg said, he learned that Anderson was romantically involved with Adler.

Silberg brought suit against Anderson for intentional infliction of emotional distress, professional negligence and breach of contract, charging that she had concealed her alleged romance to gain an unfair advantage for Janet Silberg and provide business for Adler.

The suit claimed that a report Adler subsequently wrote for the judge in the divorce case was biased and defamatory against Silberg and, among other things, had estranged him from his children.

Anderson’s attorneys denied any wrongdoing and, citing the legal privilege against such suits, won a dismissal of the suit in Sonoma County Superior Court.

But the state Court of Appeal in San Francisco reinstated the suit, saying Silberg was entitled to try to prove his allegations against Anderson at a trial.

The appeals court acknowledged that state law has generally protected judges, lawyers and litigants from civil suits for their conduct in judicial proceedings. But such protections should not apply to conduct that is blatantly unethical and does not serve the ends of justice, the appellate court said.