## Facts

- An Oregon automobile dealer sued a used-car purchaser for the unpaid balance of the purchase price in an earlier lawsuit.
- The purchaser, represented by attorneys Larry Roloff and Douglas Melevin, counterclaimed based on alleged defects and warranty theories, and the dealer ultimately lost.
- The dealer later sued the purchaser’s attorneys (who had no attorney-client relationship with the dealer) seeking damages as a third party allegedly harmed by the attorneys’ litigation conduct.
- The dealer alleged the attorneys violated ORS 9.460(4) (duty not to mislead the court or jury by artifice or false statement of law or fact) by:
  - Intentionally making false allegations in pleadings about warranties and refusal to repair without charge.
  - Allowing the purchaser to give false sworn testimony about the dealer’s repair offers.
  - Attempting to exclude evidence of the dealer’s offers to repair at no cost.
- The dealer sought damages for reputational harm and for attorney fees incurred in defending the prior action that were not recoverable there.
- The trial court sustained a demurrer to the dealer’s second amended complaint and dismissed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether ORS 9.460(4) creates (expressly or by implication) a civil cause of action for damages in favor of an attorney’s litigation adversary.
2. Whether a losing party in prior litigation may sue opposing counsel for damages based on allegedly false pleadings, tolerated false testimony, or efforts to exclude evidence, framed as statutory violations.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- ORS 9.460(4) was held not to provide a private damages remedy to an opposing party.
- The court declined to recognize an implied civil cause of action based on ORS 9.460(4).
- The allegations, even if characterized as misconduct in litigation, did not plead an independently recognized tort claim against opposing counsel.
- Allowing such suits would invite collateral attacks on concluded litigation and disrupt established mechanisms for addressing alleged misconduct within the original case and through discipline.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes describing attorneys’ professional duties generally function as regulatory and disciplinary provisions and do not, without legislative direction, create private damages actions for non-clients.
- A private right of action will not be implied from an attorney-discipline statute absent indicia of legislative intent to authorize civil liability to third parties.
- Challenges to alleged misstatements, evidentiary positions, and witness credibility are ordinarily addressed within the underlying proceeding (through objections, motions, appeal) and through professional discipline, not through subsequent tort suits against opposing counsel.
- Absent a recognized tort duty owed by opposing counsel to an adverse party, allegations of misleading advocacy in prior litigation do not state a civil claim for damages.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court held that ORS 9.460(4) does not authorize a damages action by an adverse party against opposing counsel for alleged misleading litigation conduct, and it affirmed dismissal because the complaint alleged no other cognizable tort theory under Oregon law.


Bob Godfrey Pontiac, Inc. v. Roloff, 630 P.2d 840 (Or. 1981)