N.J. Supremes to Weigh Law Firm Liability for Client’s Improper Suit
The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a law firm can be liable for representing a nightclub that improperly sued neighbors who publicly opposed the business’s expansion.
David Bauman represents the law firm sued for malicious use of process, Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla of Middletown, N.J. He wants the court to protect law firms, the New Jersey Law Journal reports. Lawyers need to be able to represent clients “without fear of being held liable as insurers for the quality of their clients’ cases,” he said.
An appeals court agreed with that view in an August opinion.
Citing the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, § 57(2), the court said a law firm should not be liable unless it knows its client’s claim is baseless and the litigation furthers the law firm’s own improper purposes.
“No reasonable fact finder could determine that Giordano pursued this litigation with the intent to further its own illegitimate purpose or that it had adopted an illegitimate purpose of the client,” the court said.
In the nightclub’s original lawsuit, a jury found the neighbors who opposed its expansion were liable for emotional distress and interfering with business advantage. But an appeals court found the defendants were protected by their constitutional right to participate in public debate. The court reversed and remanded the case for the neighbors’ counterclaims.
On remand, the neighbors filed a complaint against the nightclub for malicious use of process and included as defendants the Giordano law firm.
The appeals court said its second decision in the case that its ruling for the law firm ensures that “representation will be available when the client’s claim has only marginal merit and may be pursued by the client for other than legitimate purposes.”
An earlier article on the case (PDF) said the August decision champions the right of lawyers to zealously advocate for their clients.
