MCLE SELF-STUDY ARTICLE: WORKING WITH THE ENEMY: HOW PARTIES CAN PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST THE BROAD DOCTRINE OF QUASI-JUDICIAL IMMUNITY

Written by Jonathan H. Park, Esq.* and Zachary Johnson, Esq.*

I. SYNOPSIS

The doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity poses unique legal challenges for parties and other interested persons involved in litigation. Quasi-judicial immunity is a doctrine that extends judicial immunity to persons other than judges if those persons act in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity.⁰¹But how broad is the doctrine in practice, and to what range of persons can it be applied? The recent case of Holt v. Brock provides insight into answering those questions and also serves as a cautionary tale to litigants, especially in probate court.⁰²

In Holt, the Court of Appeal found that, as a matter of first impression, a real estate broker appointed by the trial court to sell property of litigants was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Even though the broker was not performing a function normally performed by a judge, nor engaged in dispute resolution, he was determined to be acting as a limited agent for the court. Thus, the broker was immune from claims of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.⁰³