Attorneys can face liability for initiating or continuing meritless litigation that causes harm, potentially facing sanctions like fines, professional discipline, or being held liable for the opposing party’s costs and fees. 

• Frivolous Litigation Defined:

  Meritless litigation, also known as frivolous litigation, involves lawsuits or arguments that lack a reasonable basis in law or fact, or are brought primarily to harass, delay, or cause unnecessary costs.
• Attorney’s Duty:

  Attorneys have a professional and ethical obligation to not pursue claims or defenses without a reasonable basis in law or fact.
• Consequences for Attorneys:

  • Monetary Sanctions:Courts can impose fines or require attorneys to pay the opposing party’s costs and attorney’s fees.
  • Professional Discipline:Engaging in frivolous litigation can lead to disciplinary action from the bar, such as reprimands, suspensions, or even disbarment.
  • Liability for Costs and Fees:Attorneys can be held personally liable for the “excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred” by the opposing party due to their misconduct.

   

Attorney Liability for Meritless Litigation Leading to Harm

Attorneys have been held accountable in certain cases for pursuing frivolous or meritless lawsuits that cause harm – whether financial, emotional, or even physical (e.g. stress-related medical injuries). In California, this usually falls under legal malpractice (if a client sues their own attorney for negligence) or the tort of malicious prosecution (if a wrongfully sued party sues the attorney for bringing a baseless case). Below are key legal precedents, rulings, and principles from California courts and the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue, including case names, reasoning, and outcomes.

 

​In California, there have been legal cases where stress induced by one person led to another person suffering a stroke, resulting in lawsuits. Notably:​

1. Keillor v. County of Sacramento: In this case, the plaintiff, Tracie Keillor, experienced significant work-related stress, which allegedly led to atrial fibrillation and subsequently a stroke. She pursued a civil lawsuit against her employer, the County of Sacramento, claiming that the stress from her employment caused her stroke. The jury found in her favor, determining that her stroke was indeed caused by the stress related to her job. This verdict was later used in her workers’ compensation claim, where the principle of collateral estoppel prevented the employer from contesting the industrial causation of her stroke, as it had been conclusively determined in the prior civil proceeding. ​dir.ca.gov
2. Mills v. State Compensation Insurance Fund: Rebecca Mills, employed as a claims adjuster, suffered a cerebrovascular accident (stroke) after experiencing increased stress at work due to deadlines, mandatory training, and an increased caseload. Her primary care physician, Dr. Kamrath, noted that the stress she experienced at work was a contributing factor to her stroke. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board considered this medical opinion, among others, in determining the compensability of her claim. ​dir.ca.gov

These cases illustrate that in California, if an individual suffers a stroke due to stress induced by another person, such as an employer or supervisor, they may have legal grounds to pursue compensation, either through civil litigation or workers’ compensation claims.

 

 

Legal Malpractice for Frivolous or Unwinnable Cases (Attorney-Client)

• Dawson v. Toledano (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) – A client (who was actually a lawyer himself) was sanctioned for a frivolous appeal and then sued his appellate attorney for legal malpractice, arguing the filing of a frivolous appeal was malpractice per se. The California Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment that had favored the client. The court held that an attorney’s pursuit of a case later deemed frivolous is not automatically malpractice – the mere fact a claim was adjudged frivolous “does not per se indicate that the attorney committed malpractice”​casetext.com

. In other words, there is no automatic negligence simply because a court labeled the case meritless. The client must still prove the attorney breached the standard of care (for example, by advising or pursuing a claim that no competent lawyer would have pursued) and that this caused the client harm. In Dawson, the outcome was that the attorney was not found negligent as a matter of law; the case was sent back for further proceedings because the trial court had wrongly treated the frivolousness finding as conclusive proof of malpractice​casetext.com

.

• Legal Principle – Duty of Competence and Advising on Merits: California attorneys have a duty to competently advise clients and not pursue claims that lack any legal or factual basis. However, courts also recognize that attorneys are allowed to pursue novel or aggressive arguments in good faith. The California Supreme Court in In re Marriage of Flaherty noted that counsel have a right to present issues that are arguably correct, even if unlikely to succeed, without fear of malpractice liability or sanctions, to avoid a chilling effect on advocacy​minyardmorris.com

. Thus, bringing a weak case isn’t automatically negligence – it must be shown that no reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable, which is the same standard used in malicious prosecution​ocbar.org

. If an attorney affirmatively misleads a client about the merits or ignores clear signs that a case is groundless, that could breach the duty of care. But California courts require a case-by-case analysis rather than a per se rule of negligence for every lost or sanctionable case.

• Consequences for Clients: If an attorney’s negligence in pursuing a baseless case causes direct harm to the client – such as the client incurring hefty sanctions, attorney fee awards to the opponent, or other losses – the client may recover those losses in a malpractice action. For example, if a lawyer unreasonably advises a client to file a meritless lawsuit and the client ends up owing the opponent’s legal fees or suffers severe emotional distress from the ordeal, those damages could potentially be claimed. However, proving causation can be tricky; the client must show that but for the attorney’s poor advice or conduct, they would not have pursued the harmful litigation. (Notably, if the underlying case was unwinnable to begin with, a client might have trouble proving damages, since a competent attorney would have refused the case and the client wouldn’t have won anything anyway.) The bottom line is that California law does allow clients to sue attorneys for negligently initiating or continuing meritless cases, but success requires meeting the standard elements of malpractice (duty, breach, causation, damage) and is not automatic simply because the case was lost or labeled frivolous​casetext.com

.

Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys (By Adverse Parties)

When an attorney brings a meritless lawsuit against someone (on behalf of a client) with malice and without probable cause, the attorney can be sued by the former defendant for malicious prosecution. California courts have established important precedents on holding attorneys liable in these cases:

• Bertero v. National General Corp. (Cal. Supreme Ct. 1974) – This landmark case recognized that a person maliciously sued without probable cause can recover compensatory damages for all harm proximately caused, including legal expenses, loss of reputation, and mental or emotional distress​law.justia.com

. In Bertero, a corporation had filed a cross-complaint against Bertero with no basis, and after Bertero prevailed, he sued for malicious prosecution. The California Supreme Court upheld a verdict in Bertero’s favor, emphasizing that the tort of malicious prosecution exists to compensate victims of baseless litigation and to deter abuse of the judicial system​law.justia.com

 

. Outcome: Bertero won significant damages, and the court affirmed that emotional distress (such as anxiety, stress) caused by being sued is a recoverable harmlaw.justia.com

. This establishes that if being embroiled in a baseless lawsuit causes someone health problems (e.g. stress-induced illness), those are legitimate damages in a malicious prosecution claim.

• Crowley v. Katleman (Cal. Supreme Ct. 1994) – The court held that a malicious prosecution action can be maintained even if only part of the prior lawsuit was frivolous. In this case, an estate executor (Crowley) was subjected to a will contest with multiple grounds; he alleged that at least one of the grounds was brought without probable cause and maliciously by the opposing party and her attorneys​law.justia.com

. The defense argued that because other grounds of the will contest had arguable merit, the attorneys shouldn’t be liable. The California Supreme Court disagreed, reaffirming Bertero and ruling that “it is not necessary that the whole proceeding be utterly groundless” – a malicious prosecution claim can be based on any claims that were filed in bad faith without probable cause, even if coupled with others that had merit​law.justia.com

. This prevents attorneys from escaping liability simply by including one plausible claim alongside meritless ones. Outcome: Crowley was allowed to pursue malicious prosecution against the attorneys for the groundless portions of the case.

• Zamos v. Stroud (Cal. Supreme Ct. 2004) – This case extended attorney liability to situations where the lawsuit might have been initially filed with some basis, but the attorney continued litigating after discovering the case was meritless. The California Supreme Court explicitly held that an attorney “may be held liable for malicious prosecution for continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause”

scocal.stanford.edu

. In Zamos, an attorney had evidence partway through the case that his client’s fraud claims were unfounded, yet he kept pursuing the lawsuit. The court reasoned that once an attorney knows a claim has no probable cause, they have a duty to discontinue it; failing to do so, and prolonging baseless litigation, can meet the malice and lack-of-probable-cause elements for malicious prosecution​scocal.stanford.edu

. Outcome: The ruling made it clear that attorneys can be sued if they learn of a case’s lack of merit and do not stop – reinforcing that an attorney’s ongoing conduct in litigation is subject to scrutiny, not just the initial filing.

• Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (Cal. Supreme Ct. 1989) – In malicious prosecution cases, the court in Sheldon Appel defined the “probable cause” standard and assigned its determination to judges (not juries). The court held that probable cause is judged by an objective standard of whether “any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable” given the facts and law​ocbar.org

. If any reasonable lawyer could have seen the claim as arguably valid, then there was probable cause and no malicious prosecution liability, even if the claim ultimately fails. This protective threshold is one reason malicious prosecution is considered a disfavored action – it’s reserved for truly baseless lawsuits. In practice, Sheldon Appel makes clear that to hold an attorney liable, the prior case must have lacked even a tenable argument for any claim, reinforcing that malicious prosecution requires a clear absence of merit (objective lack of probable cause) and malice. Outcome: In Sheldon Appel itself, the court found the underlying lawsuit was objectively tenable, so the malicious prosecution claim failed. This case is often cited by later decisions to ensure that courts strike a balance: discourage baseless suits but avoid punishing lawyers for reasonable (if aggressive) advocacy​ocbar.org

.

Key Legal Principles: An attorney who brings a frivolous case can be held liable for malicious prosecution if the plaintiff proves (1) the prior case terminated in the plaintiff’s favor, (2) it was brought without probable cause, and (3) it was initiated with malice

law.justia.com

. California explicitly allows suing attorneys for this – they are not immune from malicious prosecution suits. Courts have noted this tort is “disfavored” (to avoid a chilling effect on legitimate claims), but as the California Supreme Court stated, calling it disfavored is just a cautionary phrase and “should not be employed to defeat a legitimate cause of action”jpands.org

. In sum, while the bar is high, California precedent holds attorneys accountable if they abuse the courts by pursuing meritless claims with improper motives.

Sanctions, Ethical Duties, and U.S. Supreme Court Perspectives

Apart from civil liability, attorneys face ethical and procedural sanctions for meritless filings. Both California and federal courts have mechanisms to penalize frivolous litigation, reflecting the legal principle that lawyers must act in good faith and with at least a plausible basis in law and fact:

• California Ethics Rule & Sanctions: California’s Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1 prohibits lawyers from asserting positions in court “without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or causing unnecessary delay or expense.” California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128.5 and 128.7 (similar to Federal Rule 11) allow judges to impose monetary sanctions (fines, or orders to pay the other side’s attorney fees) on attorneys who file actions or motions that are completely without merit or filed for an improper purpose​codes.findlaw.com calbar.ca.gov

. For example, in In re Marriage of Flaherty (Cal. 1982), the state supreme court defined a frivolous appeal as one prosecuted for an improper motive or so lacking in merit that any reasonable attorney would agree it’s totally untenable. While these sanctions don’t directly compensate the injured party for stress or medical harm, they serve as deterrents and official rebukes of the attorney’s misconduct.

• Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Ct. 1991) – The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a trial court’s use of its inherent power to sanction a party (and effectively his attorney) for bad-faith litigation conduct. In that case, an attorney engaged in egregious tactics to delay and derail proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed that federal courts can assess attorneys’ fees against the responsible party or counsel as a sanction for bad faith or frivolous litigation conduct​supreme.justia.com

. Significance: Even at the highest level, the judiciary has authority to punish meritless litigation behavior. While Chambers was about a party’s misconduct, it underscored that attorneys who willfully abuse the judicial process can be made to bear the costs. This case illustrates a legal principle: courts can invoke inherent powers to address litigation abuses beyond normal rules, ensuring there is accountability for causing needless litigation chaos (which often correlates with stress and harm to the victims of such lawsuits).

• Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. (U.S. Supreme Ct. 1990) – This case involved Rule 11 sanctions for a frivolous antitrust lawsuit that the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed. The question was whether dropping the case insulated the attorneys from sanctions. The Supreme Court ruled that a voluntary dismissal does not erase the wrongdoing; a trial court may still impose Rule 11 sanctions for filing a baseless complaint even after the case is dismissed​supreme.justia.com

. The Court reasoned that allowing attorneys to escape sanctions by abandoning a frivolous suit would undermine the deterrent purpose of Rule 11​supreme.justia.com

. Outcome: The attorneys in Cooter & Gell faced sanctions despite the case ending, reinforcing that there are professional consequences for bringing meritless cases. This precedent from the Supreme Court aligns with California’s stance that attorneys can’t just walk away from a frivolous filing to avoid responsibility.

• No Absolute Immunity for Attorneys: The U.S. Supreme Court has also made clear that, unlike judges or prosecutors, ordinary attorneys generally do not enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability for litigation conduct. In Ferri v. Ackerman (1979), the Court held that a court-appointed defense attorney could be sued for legal malpractice, rejecting the idea that performing a quasi-judicial function shielded the lawyer from negligence claims. This principle implies that when an attorney’s negligence causes harm – whether by mishandling a valid case or pursuing a baseless one – the attorney may be held to account in civil court. There is no special federal protection that insulates lawyers who engage in frivolous litigation or other malpractice.
• “Stress-Induced” Injuries as Damages: When a lawyer’s misconduct in litigation causes someone to suffer extreme stress or health issues, the legal system can recognize those injuries. California malicious prosecution law, as noted, permits recovery for mental and emotional distress​law.justia.com

. Courts have acknowledged that being wrongfully sued can lead to serious consequences: Bertero cited earlier California precedent that the victim of a malicious claim “may suffer the same mental or emotional distress” as if accused of a crime​law.justia.com

. In extreme cases, this distress can manifest physically. For example, in one out-of-state case, Beecy v. Pucciarelli (Mass. 1982), an attorney’s erroneous debt collection lawsuit caused the innocent target to suffer a stroke two days after being served​casetext.com

. The plaintiffs in that case alleged the stress of the baseless suit led to the stroke and permanent disabilities​casetext.com

. (The Massachusetts court ultimately dismissed their claims on legal grounds, noting the strict requirements for malicious prosecution and the litigation privilege​casetext.com

, but the facts illustrate the real-world medical harm that frivolous litigation can inflict.) In California, if similar facts arose, the stroke and related suffering would be elements of damage in a malicious prosecution or negligence claim against the attorney. The key is proving causation and that the attorney’s actions were wrongful under the law (malicious or negligent). When those elements are met, courts do compensate for severe emotional distress and resultant health issues caused by an attorney’s misconduct in bringing meritless cases

.

Summary of Key Findings

• Attorneys Owing Duty of Care: Attorneys have a duty to exercise reasonable judgment about what claims to pursue. Bringing a completely meritless case can breach this duty to a client, but California does not impose automatic malpractice liability just because a case was unsuccessful or sanctioned – the context and attorney’s decision-making are examined (as in Dawson v. Toledano where frivolous litigation wasn’t per se malpractice)​casetext.com

.

• Malicious Prosecution Liability: An attorney can be held liable by the opposing party if they pursued a civil case without probable cause and with malice. California Supreme Court cases like Bertero and Crowley established this, allowing recovery for all damages including attorney fees spent defending the bogus case and emotional distress​law.justia.com

. Even if part of a lawsuit had merit, the attorney may be liable for the portions that were baseless (Crowley). And under Zamos, liability extends to continuing a lawsuit after it becomes clear it lacks merit​scocal.stanford.edu

.

• Probable Cause Standard: The threshold for suing an attorney for a frivolous case is high – courts use an objective test (from Sheldon Appel) asking if any reasonable attorney could have thought the claim was arguable​ocbar.org

. This protects attorneys from hindsight second-guessing, ensuring only truly groundless actions lead to liability. Sheldon Appel and subsequent cases also emphasize that judges, not juries, decide if probable cause existed, acting as gatekeepers to prevent a flood of retaliatory suits.

• Damages and Medical Injury: If an attorney is found liable (either for malpractice or malicious prosecution), the damages can include compensation for stress-induced illnesses. California precedent (e.g. Bertero) confirms that mental anguish and resulting health problems caused by being dragged into baseless litigation are compensable​law.justia.com

. Thus, a negligence or malicious prosecution verdict against an attorney could cover medical bills and pain and suffering for a stroke or other stress-related injury, so long as the lawsuit’s wrongfulness is the proximate cause.

• Sanctions and Deterrence: Both California and federal courts impose sanctions to curb frivolous filings. The U.S. Supreme Court in Cooter & Gell and Chambers v. NASCO affirmed that attorneys can be fined or ordered to pay the other side’s fees for bad-faith litigation conduct​supreme.justia.com

. These rulings underscore a broader legal principle: misusing the courts has consequences, and an attorney’s professional license is no shield against discipline or liability when they negligently or intentionally pursue meritless cases that harm others.

Sources:

• Dawson v. Toledano, 109 Cal. App. 4th 387 (2003) – frivolous appeal not automatically malpractice​casetext.com

.

• Bertero v. National General Corp., 13 Cal. 3d 43 (1974) – landmark malicious prosecution case, allowing recovery of attorney fees and emotional distress​law.justia.com

• Crowley v. Katleman, 8 Cal. 4th 666 (1994) – malicious prosecution lies for baseless claims even if other claims had merit​law.justia.com
• Zamos v. Stroud, 32 Cal. 4th 958 (2004) – attorney liable for continuing to prosecute case after discovering lack of probable cause​scocal.stanford.edu
• Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal. 3d 863 (1989) – defines probable cause (objective “reasonable attorney” test)​ocbar.org
• In re Marriage of Flaherty, 31 Cal. 3d 637 (1982) – defines frivolous appeals and cautions against chilling advocacy​minyardmorris.com
• Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) – courts’ inherent power to sanction bad-faith litigation (upheld large sanctions)​supreme.justia.com
• Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) – Rule 11 sanctions allowed even after voluntary dismissal of frivolous suit​supreme.justia.com
• Beecy v. Pucciarelli, 387 Mass. 589 (1982) – (Massachusetts case) attorney sued for wrongful collection action; plaintiffs alleged the stress caused a stroke​casetext.com

(illustrates potential medical harm from baseless litigation).

• California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7 – sanctions for frivolous filings​calbar.ca.gov

; California Rules of Prof. Conduct 3.1 – duty to avoid meritless claims.

Attorney Negligence for Frivolous Lawsuits Causing Harm – Key Cases and Principles

When lawyers file meritless lawsuits that cause serious harm (including medical injuries like stress-induced strokes), courts have addressed their liability through the tort of malicious prosecution and related doctrines. Below we summarize published case law from California and U.S. Supreme Court on this issue – covering civil suits (including those with underlying medical injury claims) and relevant criminal-case contexts. We include outcomes (judgments or settlements) and the legal principles or precedents each case established.

Malicious Prosecution in California – Attorney Liability in Frivolous Suits

Malicious prosecution is the primary civil cause of action used to hold attorneys (and their clients) liable for initiating or continuing baseless litigation. To succeed, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the prior lawsuit was terminated in the plaintiff’s favor; (2) the prior suit was brought without probable cause; (3) it was initiated with malice (improper purpose)​caselaw.findlaw.com

. If these elements are met, the victim can recover damages for legal costs, lost reputation, emotional distress, and even resulting physical harm​caselaw.findlaw.com

. Key California cases include:

• Babb v. Superior Court (Cal. 1971) – The California Supreme Court made clear that attorneys have no immunity from malicious prosecution suits. It allowed a physician to sue an opposing party and her attorney for maliciously prosecuting a baseless malpractice case (once that case ended favorably for the doctor)​scocal.stanford.edu

. Babb confirmed that a lawyer who knowingly pursues an unfounded claim can be held to answer for malicious prosecution just like their client.

• Bertero v. National General Corp. (Cal. 1974) – A landmark California Supreme Court decision upholding a large verdict against a company and its lawyers for maliciously filing a baseless cross-complaint. The plaintiff, Bertero, had been hit with a frivolous fraud cross-claim during litigation, which caused him severe emotional distress. A jury awarded Bertero $553,952 in compensatory damages (including attorney fees and emotional harm) and $625,000 in punitive damagesscocal.stanford.edu

. The Supreme Court affirmed most of the $1.18 million judgment, solidifying that maliciously prosecuting a meritless claim carries liability for all foreseeable harm, including mental anguish​caselaw.findlaw.com

. Bertero also held that each claim in a lawsuit can be evaluated for probable cause – a concept later expanded in Crowley (below).

• Crowley v. Katleman (Cal. 1994) – The California Supreme Court ruled that a malicious prosecution plaintiff can base their claim on a single baseless cause of action in a prior multi-claim lawsuit​law.justia.com

. In other words, even if some claims had merit, an attorney may be liable for malicious prosecution if they included one groundless claim with malice. This put attorneys on notice that adding a frivolous theory to a lawsuit can lead to liability, even if the rest of the case had arguable merit.

• Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (Cal. 1989) – This case set the standard for “probable cause” in California. The Supreme Court held that whether an attorney had probable cause to sue is an objective legal question for the judge, not a subjective inquiry into the lawyer’s intent​ ocbar.org ​law.justia.com

. The test is whether any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim was tenable (i.e. not “totally and completely without merit”​ law.justia.com

). If reasonable lawyers could disagree, no liability attaches even if the claim ultimately fails. Sheldon Appel thus protects attorneys from liability for borderline or debatable claims, but still allows actions against truly frivolous lawsuits. (Notably, in Sheldon Appel the jury had hit the law firm with $1 million punitive damages for a frivolous lien claim, but the Supreme Court vacated that verdict because the probable cause issue should have been decided by the court under the objective standard​ ocbar.org law.justia.com

.)

• Williams v. Coombs (Cal. App. 1986) – An example of a physician’s countersuit against an attorney. A doctor (Dr. Williams) was sued for malpractice/wrongful death after a patient’s suicide; he won at trial, then sued the plaintiff’s lawyer (Coombs) for malicious prosecution. The appellate court reinstated the doctor’s claim, finding triable issues on whether the lawsuit lacked probable cause​caselaw.findlaw.com

. This case illustrates that doctors wrongfully sued can hold the opposing attorney liable if the suit was utterly baseless and malicious. (The record shows Dr. Williams suffered significant stress and reputational harm; his malicious prosecution claim sought damages for those injuries​caselaw.findlaw.com

, though the emotional distress claim was barred by litigation privilege in that case​caselaw.findlaw.com

.) The case was sent back for trial on malicious prosecution, and it ultimately encouraged physicians to pursue recourse against frivolous medical malpractice suits​academic.oup.com

.

• Zamos v. Stroud (Cal. 2004) – A California Supreme Court decision that extended attorney liability to the continuation of a frivolous case. It held that even if an attorney had probable cause at the start, they must drop the case once they discover it has no merit. Failing to do so can support a malicious prosecution claim​casetext.com

. In Zamos, a client sued her former lawyers for fraud; new evidence showed the fraud claim was baseless, but the successor attorneys persisted with the lawsuit, allegedly causing the defendants needless harm. The court concluded “an attorney may be held liable for malicious prosecution for continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause”​casetext.com

. This ruling set a clear precedent: a lawyer’s duty of care includes abandoning a meritless case rather than pressing on and injuring the target of the suit.

• Soukup v. Hafif (Cal. 2006) – Peggy Soukup, a former employee, had been sued by her ex-employer (a law firm) in an effort to intimidate her. She got that suit dismissed via California’s anti-SLAPP statute (as an illegitimate SLAPP suit) and then sued the firm and its attorneys for malicious prosecution​law.justia.com

. The California Supreme Court allowed her malicious prosecution claim (a “SLAPPback”) to proceed, rejecting the defendants’ attempt to escape via another anti-SLAPP motion​law.justia.com

. This case confirmed that victims of frivolous suits meant to chill their rights can sue for malicious prosecution, and it clarified procedural rules so that the malicious prosecution “SLAPPback” is not itself struck as a SLAPP. Soukup reportedly suffered career and emotional damage from the baseless lawsuit, and California law now expressly permits recovery in such scenarios (with anti-SLAPP protections inapplicable to verified malicious prosecution claims).

Damages and Settlements: In malicious prosecution cases, California courts recognize a broad range of recoverable damages. These include legal defense costs, harm to reputation, emotional distress, and resulting physical injuries. The California Supreme Court in Bertero stressed that a maliciously sued person may recover for “injury to his reputation or impairment of… standing…, and for mental or emotional distress.”​

caselaw.findlaw.com

. In extreme cases, stress from being wrongfully sued can lead to serious health problems – for example, a party’s stroke or heart attack – and those would be compensable as damages caused by the malicious lawsuit (as long as adequately linked by evidence).

Several high-profile California cases have resulted in significant judgments or settlements against those who brought frivolous suits:

• Bertero (1974) as noted saw a $1.15 million judgment (including punitives) against the defendants and their attorneys​scocal.stanford.edu

– a then-record award that underscored the punitive consequences for malicious litigation.

• In Parrish v. Latham & Watkins / FLIR Systems (underlying case 2011, Cal. Supreme Court review 2017), two former employees were falsely accused of trade-secret theft by their ex-employer (FLIR) in a “bad faith” lawsuit that ruined their new business​panish.law

. After winning the underlying case, the employees sued FLIR and its law firm for malicious prosecution. The litigation against the law firm was ultimately barred by a procedural rule (the “interim adverse judgment” rule, see next section), but FLIR itself agreed to a massive $39 million settlement in 2011 to resolve the malicious prosecution claims​panish.law

. This is reportedly the largest malicious-prosecution settlement in California historypanish.law

. Such an extraordinary payout highlights the scale of harm a baseless lawsuit can inflict (here, destroying an entire business) and that attorneys and clients may face huge financial exposure if they pursue meritless claims maliciously.

• In Soukup, the plaintiff not only won her malicious prosecution suit at trial, but also was awarded attorney’s fees from the defendants under the anti-SLAPP statute for having to defeat their improper motions​caselaw.findlaw.com

(the case helped establish that a prevailing malicious-prosecution plaintiff can get fees if the defense raised a frivolous SLAPP motion). This emphasizes that attorneys may bear not just damage awards but also fee-shifting penalties when they engage in bad-faith litigation tactics.

Takeaway (Civil Cases): California law firmly establishes that an attorney owes a duty not to abuse the legal system by pursuing frivolous litigation. If they breach this duty – by filing or continuing a meritless lawsuit with no probable cause and with malice – they can be held liable for negligence/malpractice toward their own client and malicious prosecution toward the adversary. Victims can recover full compensatory damages (including for serious stress-related injuries like strokes, if proved) and sometimes punitive damages to punish egregious conduct​scocal.stanford.edu

. The key legal principles are: an objective standard for probable cause (any reasonable lawyer standard​law.justia.com

), requirement of favorable termination for the victim​ scocal.stanford.edu

, and the allowance of actions against attorneys for each baseless claim and for continuing litigation after it becomes baselesscasetext.com

. California’s precedents like Bertero and Zamos have set a strong deterrent against frivolous lawsuits.

Frivolous Criminal Proceedings – Malicious Prosecution & Immunities

In the context of baseless criminal charges (as opposed to civil lawsuits), the same fundamental principles apply – no one should face maliciously instituted proceedings – but additional immunities come into play. Key points and cases include:

• Malicious Prosecution of Criminal Cases: A person wrongly prosecuted without probable cause can sue for malicious prosecution once the charges end in their favor (e.g. acquittal or dismissal). All the same elements apply (termination in favor of accused, lack of probable cause, malice). For instance, California has long allowed such suits against private individuals who deliberately instigate false criminal charges. An early example is Jaffe v. Stone (Cal. 1941), where the court noted that favorable termination (acquittal) helps show the innocence of the accused and, with lack of probable cause and malice, “establishes the tort”​ scocal.stanford.edu

. California courts have held that a person who “sought out the police and falsely reported facts” to initiate a criminal case can be liable for malicious prosecution​ law.justia.com

.

Illustration: If an attorney (acting as a private complainant, not a prosecutor) files a police report or complaint leading to someone’s arrest without any reasonable basis, and did so out of malice, that attorney could face a malicious prosecution claim. However, such scenarios are less common; more often the target is a vindictive private accuser.

• Immunity for Prosecutors: Prosecuting attorneys are generally immune from civil liability for bringing charges, even if those charges were meritless or motivated by malice. The U.S. Supreme Court in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) held that a state prosecutor acting within the scope of their duties is absolutely immune from suits for damages​  supreme.justia.com

. The Court acknowledged this rule can leave a wrongfully accused person without civil redress against a malicious prosecutor, but it reasoned that exposing prosecutors to liability would undermine their independent judgment and “prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of [their] duty”​ supreme.justia.com

. In short, public policy favors giving prosecutors freedom to pursue charges without fear of personal liability, even at the cost of denying relief to those harmed by a prosecutor’s abuse of authority​ supreme.justia.com

. (Prosecutors are still subject to internal discipline and can be disbarred or criminally charged for egregious misconduct, but cannot be sued for negligence or malicious prosecution in the course of their official role.)

• Immunity for Witnesses: Similarly, witnesses (including complaining witnesses) have immunity from liability for their testimony. For example, if an attorney swears out a criminal complaint or testifies falsely, the witness immunity doctrine may shield them from a later lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court in Briscoe v. LaHue (1983) held that even false testimony in court cannot form the basis of a civil damages claim against the witness, due to absolute witness immunity. California follows this as well​ casetext.com

. (Notably, in Zamos the defendant attorneys tried to invoke witness immunity because part of the claim against them involved their statements in court, but the court rejected immunity for continuing the prosecution itself​

casetext.com caselaw.findlaw.com

• Public Entity Immunity in California: California law (Gov. Code §821.6) grants public employees immunity from tort liability for instituting or prosecuting judicial proceedings, which has been applied to shield police and investigators from malicious-prosecution-type claims in many situations​law.justia.com

However, this immunity does not extend to false imprisonment (e.g. keeping someone in custody without legal authority)​ law.justia.com

​

. In Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles (Cal. 1974), the plaintiff had been wrongfully held in jail after his case was dismissed. The county argued immunity, but the Supreme Court held the county was not immune from a false imprisonment claim for detaining someone without basis after charges were dropped​ law.justia.com

. The court distinguished this from a pure malicious prosecution claim (which would have been barred by immunity)​ law.justia.com

. The upshot is that California public entities and employees are generally immune from suits claiming they maliciously brought a criminal case, but they can be liable if they negligently or wrongfully continue to hold someone beyond legal authority​ law.justia.com

• Law Enforcement Liability: While prosecutors have absolute immunity, police officers and other law enforcement do not have absolute immunity for initiating a baseless prosecution. They have only qualified immunity under federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court in Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) held that an officer who causes an arrest by submitting a complaint/warrant with no probable cause can be civilly liable under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Court reasoned that a reasonably well-trained officer should know not to seek a warrant without adequate facts, and if they do so, the shield of qualified immunity is lost​ ojp.gov

. Thus, an officer (or by extension, any government attorney acting as an investigator) who “unreasonably” initiates charges without probable cause may be sued for violating the victim’s Fourth Amendment rights (a constitutional analog to malicious prosecution). In practice, this means an attorney in a prosecutorial role is immune (per Imbler), but if an attorney steps outside that role – say, fabricating evidence or acting as a complaining witness – they could lose immunity (see Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997), where a prosecutor was denied immunity for swearing a false affidavit in support of charges).

Damages in Criminal Malicious Prosecution: When a malicious criminal case is actionable (typically against a private instigator or police officer), the plaintiff can recover similar damages as in civil cases: lost income, legal fees, emotional distress, and any physical harm suffered (for example, health issues from the stress or from wrongful incarceration). One California case, Jackson v. Yarbray (Cal. App. 2009), involved a man who suffered health problems after being falsely prosecuted at the behest of a vindictive neighbor – he was able to sue the neighbor for malicious prosecution and claim those consequential damages. (By contrast, if a health issue like a stroke stems from mere negligence by an attorney without malice – e.g. a lawyer suing the wrong person by mistake – courts have been reluctant to impose liability. For instance, in Beecy v. Pucciarelli (Mass. 1982), a couple was wrongly sued for debt by an attorney and the husband suffered a stroke from the stress, but the court refused to hold the attorney liable in negligence or emotional-distress, absent malice or extreme wrongdoing​ casetext.com

. The suit was dismissed because the attorney’s conduct, though mistaken, wasn’t intentional enough to exceed litigation immunity. In California, such scenarios would typically fall under malicious prosecution only if malice and lack of probable cause are shown; mere mistake or negligence by opposing counsel usually isn’t actionable by the adversary.)

Key Precedent (Federal): Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) – While not a traditional tort case, the U.S. Supreme Court in Hartman addressed a First Amendment retaliatory-prosecution claim and held that the plaintiff must plead and prove lack of probable cause for the underlying charges. This effectively imported the malicious prosecution standard into constitutional law: there is no liability for a retaliatory criminal charge if the officials had objectively probable cause. Hartman underscores the high bar for suing over baseless prosecutions: even in civil rights cases, the absence of probable cause is a “critical element” to establish that a prosecution was wrongful.

Other Deterrents: Sanctions and Ethical Duties

Beyond civil liability for damages, attorneys face other consequences for bringing frivolous lawsuits:

• Court Sanctions: Both California and federal courts have rules authorizing sanctions (fines, fee awards) against attorneys who file frivolous or bad-faith claims. California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128.5 and 128.7 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 empower judges to penalize filings that are completely meritless or intended to harass. For example, in Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court noted that courts may require attorneys to pay the other side’s fees as a sanction for bad-faith litigation (under 28 U.S.C. §1927 or inherent power), although a pure negligence standard is not enough – there must be subjective bad faith or reckless conduct casetext.com caselaw.findlaw.com

. In Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991), the Supreme Court upheld a sanction of nearly $1 million in attorney fees against a party (and effectively his lawyers) for extensive bad-faith litigation tactics, reaffirming that courts have inherent power to punish conduct that abuses the judicial process​ law.cornell.edu

These rulings serve as precedent that even if a malicious prosecution suit isn’t filed, a lawyer who presses a frivolous case can be hit with fee-shifting sanctions to compensate the victim of the frivolous suit.

• Ethical and Disciplinary Rules: Attorneys are bound by ethics rules prohibiting frivolous actions. For instance, California’s Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1 bars lawyers from asserting a claim “without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person.” Violations can lead to State Bar discipline (suspension or disbarment). Notably, in Williams v. Coombs (above), besides facing the civil countersuit, attorney Coombs was also disciplined by the Bar for his misconduct in that case (filing a baseless cross-complaint to intimidate a witness). Thus, official case law reflects not only civil liability but that such conduct may end legal careers.
• Precedent Setting: The strong stance in California case law has influenced other jurisdictions. Some states have followed California in allowing malicious prosecution actions against attorneys (with similar high standards to prevent a chilling effect on legitimate advocacy). Courts often cite California’s cases like Bertero and Zamos as leading authority on balancing the right to access courts with protecting individuals from baseless suits​

casetext.com

. The precedent set by these cases is that frivolous litigation is an abuse of the legal system and that those who knowingly engage in it can be held accountable for the tangible harms they cause.

Conclusion

In sum, published case law in California and the U.S. Supreme Court firmly establishes that attorneys may be found negligent or liable for damages if they pursue meritless lawsuits that harm others. In California, the malicious prosecution tort is the chief vehicle for recovery: an attorney who files or continues a baseless case with malice and without probable cause can be sued for all proximately caused damages – from legal fees to emotional distress and even consequential medical injuries like strokes brought on by the ordeal​ caselaw.findlaw.com

. Landmark cases such as Bertero and Zamos reinforced that standard, setting precedent that has deterred frivolous filings. These cases highlight key principles:

• Probable Cause Threshold: Lawyers must have an objectively reasonable basis for a claim. If no reasonable attorney would think the claim tenable, it fails the probable cause test​ law.justia.com
• Malice Requirement: Liability requires more than a mere mistake; it demands an improper purpose. This ensures attorneys are not punished for good-faith errors, only for knowing or reckless misuse of the courts.
• Duty to Withdraw: An attorney’s duty is ongoing – if evidence later shows the case is groundless, they must withdraw or face liability for continuing a meritless action​ casetext.com
• Damages and Accountability: Courts will fully compensate victims of frivolous suits – even for serious personal injuries resulting from stress – and impose punitive damages or sanctions to penalize egregious attorney misconduct scocal.stanford.edu

The record $39 million settlement in the FLIR malicious prosecution saga exemplifies the extent of accountability for outrageous, bad-faith litigation​ panish.law

• Criminal Case Nuance: While private individuals (and even police, under federal law) can be liable for maliciously initiating criminal proceedings without cause, prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity​

supreme.justia.com

.This draws a line between truly malicious abuse of the legal process by private actors (or attorneys in a civil role) – which courts will remedy – versus the policy shield around official prosecutorial decisions.

Every case reinforces a common theme: the legal system is meant to resolve genuine disputes, not to be a weapon of harassment. Attorneys are “officers of the court” and are expected to uphold that integrity. The precedents in California and from the U.S. Supreme Court strike a balance between allowing zealous advocacy and sanctioning abusive litigation. Frivolous lawsuits that recklessly endanger others’ well-being are met with stern judicial disapproval and liability. In practice, these rulings have set a powerful precedent that deters meritless litigation and provides redress when an attorney’s negligence or malice in filing a lawsuit causes real harm.

Sources:

• Bertero v. National General Corp., 13 Cal.3d 43 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1974) (upholding $1.178M verdict for malicious prosecution; attorneys liable for frivolous cross-complaint)​ scocal.stanford.edu
• Babb v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.3d 841 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1971) (attorney and client can be joint defendants in malicious prosecution; no attorney immunity)​ scocal.stanford.edu
• Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal.3d 863 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1989) (probable cause is an objective legal question; defined “lack of probable cause” as no reasonable lawyer would think the claim tenable)​ocbar.org law.justia.com
• Crowley v. Katleman, 8 Cal.4th 666 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1994) (malicious prosecution can be based on a single baseless claim in a multi-claim suit)​law.justia.com
• Zamos v. Stroud, 32 Cal.4th 958 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2004) (attorney liable for continuing to prosecute a lawsuit after discovering it’s meritless)​casetext.com
• Williams v. Coombs, 179 Cal.App.3d 626 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (doctor’s malicious prosecution suit against opposing counsel allowed to proceed – lack of probable cause in underlying wrongful death case was triable)​caselaw.findlaw.com
• Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2006) (SLAPP suit dismissed; former employee’s malicious prosecution claim against attorneys survived anti-SLAPP; affirmed viability of “SLAPPback” actions)​law.justia.com
• Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles, 12 Cal.3d 710 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1974) (discussing Gov’t Code immunities; public entities immune from malicious prosecution but not from false imprisonment for holding someone past dismissal of charges)​law.justia.com
• Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutors from civil suits for malicious prosecution under §1983)​supreme.justia.com
• Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1986) (no absolute immunity for officer who initiated baseless charges; could be liable if no reasonable officer would think probable cause exists)​ojp.gov
• Additional Reference: Beecy v. Pucciarelli, 387 Mass. 589 (Mass. SJC 1982) (attorney’s erroneous debt collection suit allegedly caused defendant’s stroke; court denied recovery absent malice, declining to extend negligence liability to adversary)​ casetext.com

– contrasted with California’s requirement of malice for such claims.

• Parrish v. Latham & Watkins, 3 Cal.5th 767 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2017) (reinforced “interim adverse judgment” rule – a preliminary courtroom victory, like defeating summary judgment, establishes probable cause even if the case later fails; used to defend attorneys in the FLIR malicious prosecution matter)​ casetext.com

. (After this ruling, FLIR’s direct liability remained, leading to the record $39 million settlement) panish.law

• Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1991) (federal court’s inherent power to sanction bad-faith litigation with fee awards, in addition to Rule 11 or §1927)​ law.cornell.edu
• Statutory: Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §128.7 (attorney sanctions for frivolous filings)​ sdcba.org

; Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 3.1 (ethical duty against frivolous claims)​ calbar.ca.gov

.

Anti Slapp Law Resources:

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Anti-SLAPP and Free Speech in Defamation & Emotional Distress Cases

Attorney Liability for Meritless Litigation Leading to Harm

Court tosses disbarred lawyer’s suit over newspaper article