## Facts

- Cecil C. Jackson, Jr. sued his wife, Carolyn S. Jackson, and multiple members of a law firm.
- Cecil alleged that Carolyn and one lawyer in the firm, Golding, conspired to have Cecil maliciously prosecuted without probable cause.
- Cecil sought to hold not only Golding but also Golding’s law partners responsible, based on partnership liability principles.
- The other law-firm partners submitted materials showing they had no participation in, authorization of, knowledge of, or approval of Golding’s alleged conduct.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the non-participating partners.
- Cecil appealed, and the North Carolina Court of Appeals reviewed the summary-judgment ruling after granting certiorari.

## Issues

1. Under G.S. § 59-43, are all partners in a law firm vicariously liable for an alleged malicious prosecution instituted upon the advice or actions of one partner when the other partners did not participate in, authorize, know of, or approve the conduct?
2. Does an alleged malicious prosecution by a lawyer fall within the “ordinary course of the business of the partnership” so as to bind the partnership and uninvolved partners?

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for the non-participating law-firm partners.
- The court applied G.S. § 59-43, which imposes partnership liability only for a partner’s wrongful act committed in the ordinary course of partnership business or with authority from copartners.
- The court held that a malicious prosecution undertaken maliciously and without probable cause is not an act in the ordinary course of a law partnership’s business for purposes of imposing liability on uninvolved partners.
- The court reasoned that if Golding acted lawfully and ethically, then there would be no tort liability; if he acted maliciously and unlawfully, then he would not be acting in the ordinary course of the firm’s business, so innocent partners still would not be liable.
- Because the record showed no participation, authorization, knowledge, or approval by the other partners, summary judgment in their favor was proper.

## Legal Principles

- Under G.S. § 59-43, a partnership is liable for loss caused by a partner’s wrongful act only when the partner acts in the ordinary course of the partnership’s business or with authority from copartners.
- Partnership tort-liability rules apply to law partnerships.
- Conduct that is malicious and without probable cause is outside the ordinary course of lawful legal representation for purposes of imposing vicarious liability on innocent partners.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute that certain partners neither authorized nor participated in the alleged tort and the alleged conduct, if wrongful, falls outside the statutory basis for partnership liability.

## Conclusion

*Jackson v. Jackson* held that uninvolved partners in a law firm were not vicariously liable for a partner’s alleged malicious prosecution where the other partners neither authorized nor knew of the conduct, because malicious prosecution without probable cause is not an act in the ordinary course of partnership business under G.S. § 59-43; the court therefore affirmed summary judgment for the non-participating partners.


Jackson v. Jackson, 201 S.E.2d 722 (1974)