07/16/2007
CONTACT: Melissa Sharp, 202-314-2068
Washington, D.C.--The California Supreme Court issued an important decision today that upholds a defendant's right to bring a malicious prosecution action against the lawyers that are actively involved in representing a frivolous claim. The court's decision reiterated the strong public-policy preference against frivolous lawsuits.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Thomas Siebel against two California trial attorneys. Siebel alleged 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 Siebel on all counts. Siebel then sued the attorneys, Carol Mittlesteadt and Rick Buell for malicious prosecution based on their representation of the former employee.
The National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief with the court urging that the malicious prosecution claim be supported. In its brief the NFIB Legal Foundation stressed how costly and burdensome frivolous lawsuits are to small businesses.
"NFIB is very pleased with the outcome of this case," said Karen Harned, executive director of NFIB's Legal Foundation. "The threat of a suit for malicious prosecution acts as an important deterrent to frivolous lawsuits. This is a great win for small businesses that are often the target of frivolous lawsuits because attorneys know that small employers don't have the resources available to defend themselves against these claims.
"Today's decision shows the court's resolve to discourage baseless claims by allowing victims of unwarranted lawsuits to take legal action against unscrupulous lawyers that allow frivolous claims to proceed," Harned continued. "We hope this decision will cause both claimants and their lawyers to think twice before filing a baseless claim."
The case at issue was Siebel v. Mittlesteadt et al. Supreme Court No. S125590.
