Does the doctrine of absolute immunity for lawyer conduct during judicial proceedings apply to claims of fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress?

The Connecticut Supreme Court will answer that question in the context of the following case:

27 A.3d 373 (2011)
302 Conn. 915

Robert SIMMS
Penny Q. SEAMAN et al.

SC 18839

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Decided September 7, 2011.

John R. Williams, New Haven, in support of the petition.

Raymond J. Plouffe, Jr., Shelton, Nadine M. Pare, Cheshire, Patrick M.
Noonan, and Matthew H. Geelan, Guilford, in opposition.

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate
Court, 129 Conn.App. 651, 23 A.3d 1, is granted, limited to the following

“Did the Appellate Court properly determine that claims of fraud and
intentional infliction of emotional distress brought against attorneys for
conduct that occurred during judicial proceedings were barred as a matter of law
by the doctrine of absolute immunity?”

NORCOTT and HARPER, Js., did not participate in the consideration of or
decision on this petition.