Psychologists and Forensic experts are routinely appointed by the Court to examine and produce evidence for the Court; attorneys similarly are used as guardians ad litem, as Court examiners and the like.  Are they subject to suit, especially legal malpractice for their activities?

Probably not, and in most cases, no.  Ashmore v Lewis, 2012 NY Slip Op 30189(U), January 23, 2012; Supreme Court, New York County; Docket Number: 108248/11 ; Judge: Alice Schlesinger is an example of a psychologist. Similar reasoning holds true for attorneys.

"As defendant correctly argues, the cases are legion that hold that a court- appointed forensic expert, such as Dr. Cohen Lewis here, is entitled to judicial immunity from suit in connection with the work performed pursuant to court order. For example, in Bridget M. V Billick, 36 AD3d 489, 490 (1st Dept, 2007), a case directly on point, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of an action against a psychiatrist appointed by the court as the neutral forensic evaluator in a Family Court custody proceeding, finding that the evaluator had “judicial immunity from suit for malpractice
regarding the work he performed … “ (citations omitted). Similarly, in Braverman v Halpern, 259 AD2d 306 (1st Dept 1999), the court found that allegedly defamatory statements made by an expert witness in a judicial proceeding involving child custody and visitation were not actionable, as the plaintiffs mental state was pertinent to a determination of the issues in the case. See also, Alvarez v Snyder, 264 AD2d 27 (1st Dept 2000), Iv denied 95 NY2d 759, cert denied sub nom Dim v Snyder, 531 US 1158 (2001); Finkelstein v. Bodek, 131 AD2d 337 (1st Dept’1987)’ app denied 70 NY2d 612  (statements made by a certified social worker cannot be the basis of suit, as the court appointed expert enjoyed immunity when acting pursuant to court order). The principle is not only firmly established in this judicial department, but it is well-recognized in the Second Department where the underlying divorce action was heard in this case. As recently as last year, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a malpractice suit against psychologists and social workers who had been appointed as neutral experts either in the plaintiffs divorce action or in the Family Court proceeding involving custody and visitation with the children. In support of their motion to dismiss, the defendants employed by Family Psychological Services, P. C., had submitted their orders of appointment and evidence that they had acted pursuant to those orders. In affirming the dismissal of the negligence and malpractice claims, the court held: Here, the evidentiary material submitted by the defendants on their respective motions established conclusively that judicial immunity precludes the plaintiff from recovering damages for negligence or malpractice against them . Young v Campbell, 87 AD3d 692,693 (2nd Dept 2011)  lv denied 201 1 WL 61 55561
(citations omitted); see also, Horn v Reubins, 268 AD2d 461 (2nd Dept’ 2000), app dismissed 95 NY2d 886 (defendant has judicial immunity from suit regarding the work he performed as a court-appointed forensic psychiatric expert in connection with the plaintiffs child custody litigation); Colombo v Schwartz, 15 AD3d 522, 523 (2d Dept 2005)(affirming dismissal based on immunity of lawsuit against court-appointed psychiatric expert who had served in connection with the plaintiffs spousal support I it litigation ion). Public policy supports the protection afforded a court-appointed expert based on immunity from suit. Oftentimes a court needs to hear the opinions of experts to fully and fairly determine the issues raised in litigation. Judicial immunity protects judges in the  performance of their judicial functions so as to allow them to exercise independent judgment without the threat of legal reprisal, which is “critical to our judicial system.” Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany, 99 NY2d 214, 219 (2002), quoting Tarfer v State oflVew York, 68 NY2d 511, 518 (1986). “A logical extension of this premise is that ‘other neutrally positioned [individuals], regardless of title, who are delegated judicial or quasi-judicial functions should also not be shackled with the fear of civil retribution for their acts.’.” Mosher-Simons, 99 NY2d at 220, quoting Tarter, supra. Here, because Dr. Cohen Lewis was a court-appointed neutral forensic evaluator serving a quasi-judicial function, she is entitled to immunity from suit. "