FOURTH DIVISION
March 27, 2003
No. 1-01-3638
| EDELMAN, COMBS AND LATTURNER, | ) | Appeal from the |
| DANIEL A. EDELMAN, CATHLEEN | ) | Circuit Court |
| M. COMBS, JAMES O. LATTURNER, | ) | of Cook County |
| and TARA L. GOODWIN, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Plaintiffs-Appellants, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| v. | ) | No. 00 L 2374 |
| ) | ||
| HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON, CREDIT | ) | |
| PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, L.P., | ) | |
| ETAN GENERAL, INC., AMERICAN | ) | |
| INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., ROBERT | ) | Honorable |
| H. MURIEL, DAVID M. SCHULTZ, and | ) | Philip L. Bronstein |
| PETER D. SULLIVAN, | ) | Judge Presiding. |
| ) | ||
| Defendants-Appellees. |
PRESIDING JUSTICE THEIS delivered the opinion of the court:
This appeal arises out of the trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs', Daniel Edelman, CathleenCombs, James Latturner, Tara Goodwin and their law firm Edelman, Combs & Latturner(collectively, plaintiffs), complaint. Plaintiffs essentially allege that defendants, lawyers Robert H.Muriel, David M. Schultz, Peter D. Sullivan, their law firm Hinshaw & Culbertson (Hinshaw), andHinshaw clients Credit Protection Association, L.P., Etan General, Inc., and its insurer, AmericanInternational Group, Inc. (collectively, defendants), unlawfully published a legal memorandum toa bankruptcy trustee, two attorneys, and a "John Doe." The memorandum allegedly contains falseaccusations that Edelman, Combs & Latturner (Edelman) engaged in a pattern of dishonest litigationtactics. On appeal, plaintiffs argue for reversal of the trial court's grant of defendants' combinedmotion to dismiss under section 2-619.1 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS5/2-619.1 (West 2000)) because: (1) the defendants' communications were not protected by absoluteor qualified privileges; and (2) plaintiffs stated causes of action for libel per se, intentionalinterference with prospective economic advantage, and civil conspiracy. For the following reasons,we affirm in part and reverse in part.
BACKGROUND
This cause of action arose out of bankruptcy and consumer protection practices involvingfour law firms: Feld & Korrub, Edelman, Hinshaw, and Jenner & Block (Jenner). Feld & Korrubrepresents debtors petitioning for bankruptcy and refers the debtors' potential consumer protectionclaims to Edelman. Edelman, a consumer protection litigation specialist, files these claims, oftenas class action lawsuits, for the debtors. Hinshaw defends many of these consumer claims. Jennerhas defended at least one of Edelman's consumer claims, detailed below. Plaintiffs allege that anacrimonious relationship erupted between Hinshaw and Edelman, and listed a number of federalconsumer protection actions in which Hinshaw demonstrated an "animus" against Edelman.
The specific libelous statements originated from the interplay of bankruptcy cases In reHarris, 98 B 9794, and In re Frys, No. 98 B 27293, brought by Feld & Korrub, and consumerprotection cases Harris v. Etan Industries, Inc., 98 C 4718, and Frys v. Dayton Hudson, 99 C 134,brought by Edelman.
On March 31, 1998, Feld & Korrub filed a chapter 7 (11 U.S.C.