Friedman v. Dozorc

Michigan Court of Appeals · 1978 · Torts

268 N.W.2d 673 (1978)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsNegligenceAbuse of ProcessMalicious ProsecutionAttorney Liabilityattorney dutythird-party liabilityfree access to courts

Facts

Attorneys Dozorc and Golden represented a client in a medical malpractice suit against physician Friedman. That underlying malpractice action ended with a directed verdict of no cause of action at the close of the plaintiff's proofs. Afterward, codefendants in the original suit moved for costs under GCR 111.6, but the trial judge denied the motion and declined to characterize the claims as unreasonable or spurious. Friedman then sued the attorneys, alleging negligent filing and pursuit of the malpractice action, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution, including a theory that continuing the action after learning it lacked merit was actionable.

Issue

Does an attorney owe a negligence duty to an opposing party for filing and pursuing litigation on behalf of a client, and if not, did Friedman nonetheless state viable claims for abuse of process or malicious prosecution? Also, did the prior denial of costs under GCR 111.6 conclusively establish probable cause for the attorneys' conduct?

Rule

An attorney's general obligation runs to the client, not to an adverse third party, so an opposing party cannot maintain a negligence action against the attorney for filing and pursuing litigation on the client's behalf. An attorney remains potentially liable to third parties for fraud, collusion, or malicious prosecution. Abuse of process requires an ulterior purpose plus an improper act in the use of process after issuance, and concerns misuse of process for a result the law did not intend. In malicious prosecution, if the facts bearing on probable cause are undisputed, probable cause is a question of law for the court; if the facts are disputed, probable cause is a mixed question for the jury. Probable cause for an attorney is measured by the attorney's reasonable belief that the client has a tenable claim, not by certainty that the client will prevail.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Grand Rapids, attorney Lena Ortiz filed a products-liability suit on behalf of her client against Mason Kerr, a machine designer. The suit was dismissed after discovery showed weak proof, and Mason then sued Lena for negligent investigation and negligent filing, claiming she should have verified more facts before suing him.

Which is the strongest argument for Lena on Mason's negligence claim?

Explanation. The governing rule is that an attorney's general obligation runs to the client, not to an adverse third party. Public policy favoring free access to the courts would be undermined if opposing parties could sue counsel in negligence for filing and pursuing claims. The opinion does not create blanket immunity, because attorneys may still face liability for fraud, collusion, or malicious prosecution.