Civil Litigation,
Law Practice,
California Courts of Appeal
Sep. 25, 2014
Suing lawyers for malicious prosecution just got easier
Malicious prosecution is an extremely disfavored tort - but it just got a little stronger, thanks to the weakening of the interim adverse judgment rule in a recent ruling.
Timothy D. Reuben
Founder and President of Reuben Raucher & Blum and the Founder of Reuben Mediation
Email: treuben@rrbattorneys.com
Timothy D. Reuben is a mediator, litigator and author who focuses on resolving complex civil disputes in state and federal courts, as well as in arbitration and mediation. He is also the author of "Tequila, a Story of Success, Love & Violence," a legal novel inspired by real world legal practice that explores power, loyalty and the human dynamics that drive conflict.
Malicious prosecution is an extremely disfavored tort - but it just got a little stronger, thanks to the weakening of the interim adverse judgment rule by Division 3 of the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Parrish v. Latham & Watkins, 2014 DJDAR 11944 (Aug. 27, 2014), in which the 2nd District reversed the superior court, reinstating a malicious prosecution claim against Latham & Watkins LLP for bringing a trade secret claim in bad faith. The appellate court ruled against Latham de...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In