Toward Coherence in Civil Conspiracy Law: A Proposal to Abolish the Agent's Immunity Rule

I. Introduction . . . . . 2 II. The Nature of Civil Conspiracy . . . . . 6 A. Civil Conspiracy Distinguished from Criminal Conspiracy . . . . . 6 B. The "Non-Tort" of Civil Conspiracy . . . . . 9 C. The Reason for the Non-Tort Character of Civil Conspiracy . . . . . 10 D. Consequences of the Non-Tort Character of Civil Conspiracy: The Underlying Duty Requirement . . . . . 12 1. Criticism of the Underlying Duty Requirement . . . . . 12 2. A Possible Defense of the Underlying Duty Requirement . . . . . 14 3. A Better Defense of the Underlying Duty Requirement . . . . . 16 III. The Agent's Immunity Rule: An Overbroad Defense to Civil Conspiracy . . . . . 20 A. The Agent's Privilege Theory . . . . . 22 1. Propriety of the Agent's Privilege as a Defense to Interference Claims . . . . . 22 2. Impropriety of the Agent's Privilege Outside the Interference Context . . . . . 26 B. The Single Legal Actor Theory . . . . . 30 1. The Single Legal Actor Theory in the Antitrust Context . . . . . 31 2. The Single Legal Actor Theory in the Criminal Context . . . . . 33 3. Comparing the Single Legal Actor Rules in the Criminal and Antitrust Contexts . . . . . 35 4. Whether to Apply the Single Legal Actor Theory to Bar Common Law Civil Conspiracy Claims . . . . . 36 a. Applicability of the Single Legal Actor Theory to Interference Claims . . . . . 37 b. Inapplicability of the Single Legal Actor Theory to Intentional Torts Generally . . . . . 39 5. Should the Agent's Immunity Rule Apply to Individual Principals? . . . . . 42 IV. Understanding Why Courts Apply the Agent's Immunity Rule . . . . . 43 A. The Fallacy of Agents Conspiring "With" the Corporation . . . . . 43 B. Courts Unnecessarily Overstate the Scope of Agents' Immunity . . . . . 45 C. Personal Gain as a Proxy for Intent . . . . . 49 V. Conclusion and Recommendations . . . . . 53