05/02/2007
CONTACT: Melissa Sharp, (202) 314-2068
Washington, D.C.--On Wednesday, May 2, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments over how the legal system should deal with attorneys that represent frivolous claimants. The National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief with the court urging that the court maintain a defendant's right to sue for malicious prosecution.
The case at issue stems from a complaint filed by Thomas Siebel against two California trial attorneys. Siebel alleges that the two attorneys filed frivolous employment discrimination claims against him in order to force a settlement. The attorneys had represented a former employee who sued Siebel for sexual discrimination, fraud and unpaid commissions. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Mr. Siebel on all counts. Siebel has now sued the attorneys, Carol Mittlesteadt and Rick Buell for malicious prosecution based on their representation of the former employee.
"The threat of a suit for malicious prosecution acts as an important deterrent to frivolous lawsuits," said Karen Harned, executive director of NFIB's Legal Foundation. "Small businesses are all too often the target of frivolous lawsuits because attorneys know that small employers don't have the resources available to defend themselves. If the court makes it more difficult to file malicious prosecution actions, it will increase the number of frivolous lawsuits facingCalifornia businesses and will decrease the incentive for small businesses to trust the legal system and defend themselves against frivolous claims in court."
The case is Siebel v. Mittlesteadt et al. Supreme Court No. S125590.
