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
Reuben MediationTim Reuben spent more than 40 years handling complex legal disputes in California's state and federal courts. As the founder and managing partner of Reuben Raucher & Blum in Los Angeles, he has worked on a wide range of matters through jury and bench trials, arbitration, mediation, judicial reference, and settlement conferences across multiple areas of civil law, including commercial, real estate, construction, employment, intellectual property, insurance, professional liability, and unfair competition.
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
$795 for an entire 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