Law Firm May Be Liable for Earlier Errors
A divided California appeals court has upheld a malicious prosecution claim against a law firm that apparently resulted from conduct of the plaintiff’s lead counsel. LaFave & Rice argued, essentially, that it didn’t know of alleged defects in the case, which was filed by another law firm, but the panel held that it should have known, reports the Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Hence, it reinstated the malicious prosecution claim, which had been dismissed by a trial judge. It concerned a habitability case that had been filed on behalf of one tenant in a large apartment building, along with similar claims on behalf of other tenants there.
By associating with the initial plaintiff counsel in the ongoing case, albeit after it was already filed and in a limited capacity, the LaFave firm obligated itself to investigate the claim adequately, wrote Justice Cynthia Aaron for the Fourth District Court of Appeal majority.
However, Justice Richard Huffman dissented, saying that the majority’s decision would potentially allow an attorney to be held liable for filing a defective case “at the very moment of a formal appearance.”
“I cannot accept the proposition that a lawyer who associates into ongoing litigation to provide a limited service and does nothing else can be said to have ‘pursued’ a malicious prosecution,” he wrote. “There must be some evidence of conduct other than signing an association of counsel form before one acquires liability for the acts which have gone before.”
Updated 1:12 p.m. CST to correct law firm name.
