Talk With Reporter After Meeting Protected by Anti-SLAPP

Comments made by a condominium association president following a public meeting with a Chicago alderman is protected by the Illinois Citizen Participation Act.

As a result, the defendant can recover attorneys’ fees under the Illinois anti-SLAPP statute even where the defamation case was dismissed because the underlying statement was not actionable.

A condominium developer sued the defendant for a statement the defendant made to a reporter following a public meeting in the office of a Chicago alderman. The defendant claimed that the statement was protected under the Citizen Participation Act, which is designed to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). The trial court found that the statement was not covered by the SLAPP statute since it occurred after the public meeting. The trial court then dismissed the entire case because it found the statements were not defamatory under the state’s innocent construction rule. The appellate court affirmed.

The defendant appealed the finding that the case did not fall under the anti-SLAPP statute, which allows for the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs. The Illinois Supreme Court, in reversing both the trial and appellate courts, found the appeal was not moot even though the underlying case was dismissed on the merits.

The Supreme Court also found that the anti-SLAPP statute applied in this case because the defendant made the statement in furtherance of his rights of petition, speech, association, or to otherwise participate in government. The court said it was immaterial that the statements were made after the formal meeting as part of a mingling session. “The statements to the reporter addressed a public matter—the problems of condominium conversion and draft legislation—in furtherance of his right to petition the government.” To restrict the law to the comments made during the public meeting “has no basis in the statutory language and is antithetical to the legislature’s express provisions” that the law is to be interpreted liberally.

Since the defendant would prevail under the Citizen Participation Act, he is entitled to attorney’s fees because to do otherwise “withholds the relief provided by the Act for true SLAPP defendants, and constitutes a nullification of a principal part of the anti-SLAPP legislation.”

Wright Development Group, LLC v. John Walsh, Illinois Supreme Court No. 109463, filed October 21, 2010.