Loomis

Petitioner Loomis, an attorney being sued by another attorney for abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and petitioner Kim, his client, also a defendant, contend that the lawsuit is barred by the “litigant’s privilege” set forth in Civil Code section 47, subdivision 2. Respondent court denied summary judgment on the ground that application of the privilege raised triable issues of fact. We conclude that the court erred.

Petitioner Loomis represented Kim in a contract action against a Korean corporation doing business in the United States. Real party, Joseph M. Murphy, represented the Korean company. During the pendency of the lawsuit, real party was suspended from the practice of law for a period of 30 days. The 30-day suspension was in effect on the day the Korean corporation filed its notice of motion to change venue. The heading on the document showed the name “Law Offices of Joseph M. Murphy,” and the motion papers were submitted by “Law Offices of Joseph M. Murphy —By: Patricia O’Neill Mitchell.”

Petitioner Loomis, on his client’s behalf, prepared and filed a motion to strike the Korean corporation’s motion for change of venue.…