## Facts

- A patient, Leona Serafin, was referred to Dr. Seymour Friedman for a urological consultation and surgery to remove a kidney stone.
- Serafin died after surgery from a rare blood disease rather than an alleged surgical mishap.
- Attorneys Peter Dozorc and Robert H. Golden represented Serafin’s survivors and filed a medical-malpractice action against Dr. Friedman.
- In the malpractice trial, plaintiffs produced no expert testimony establishing a breach of the professional standard of care.
- The trial court directed a verdict for Dr. Friedman, and the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Dr. Friedman then sued Dozorc and Golden, alleging the malpractice action was groundless and caused increased insurance premiums, loss of professional associates, reputational harm, and mental anguish.
- Dr. Friedman asserted claims for negligence, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney litigating for a client owes a duty of care in negligence to the opposing party, permitting a negligence claim for initiating or maintaining a civil action.
2. Whether a plaintiff states an abuse of process claim by alleging the prior lawsuit was groundless, without alleging an irregular act in the use of process after it issued.
3. Whether a plaintiff states civil malicious prosecution without alleging “special injury” involving interference with person or property beyond ordinary burdens of defending a lawsuit.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reinstated dismissal of the entire action against the attorneys.
- The Court held Dr. Friedman failed to state a negligence claim because attorneys owe no duty of care to an adverse party in litigation.
- The Court held Dr. Friedman failed to state an abuse of process claim because he did not allege an irregular act or perversion in the use of process issued in the prior case.
- The Court held Dr. Friedman failed to state a civil malicious prosecution claim because he did not allege special injury; his alleged harms were ordinary consequences of defending litigation.
- The Court affirmed dismissal of the negligence and abuse of process claims and reversed the intermediate court’s reinstatement of the malicious prosecution claim.

## Legal Principles

- An attorney generally owes no common-law duty of care in negligence to an opposing party arising from representation in litigation.
- Abuse of process requires misuse of process after issuance and typically an irregular act or perversion of the process for a collateral objective; filing or pursuing a weak lawsuit, standing alone, is insufficient.
- Civil malicious prosecution requires a showing of “special injury,” meaning interference with person or property beyond ordinary litigation burdens such as expense, reputational harm, emotional distress, or related professional consequences.
- Limits on adversary suits against opposing counsel reflect policy concerns favoring access to courts and protecting counsel’s ability to represent clients without conflicting duties to opponents.

## Conclusion

The court rejected tort liability against opposing counsel based solely on bringing or maintaining an unsuccessful civil claim, holding that negligence fails for lack of duty to the adversary, abuse of process requires an irregular use of issued process, and civil malicious prosecution requires special injury beyond ordinary litigation consequences.


Friedman v. Dozorc, 412 Mich. 1, 312 N.W.2d 585 (Mich. 1981)