## Facts

- Attorneys Bruce S. Beck and Kathleen Eldergill, and their firm, represented Walter Muszynski in a civil action against Charles J. Mozzochi alleging defamatory accusations and related wrongdoing by Mozzochi.
- Mozzochi alleged the attorneys learned during the underlying litigation that Mozzochi’s accusations about Muszynski were true, yet continued prosecuting Muszynski’s claims.
- Mozzochi claimed the attorneys continued the case to injure him and enrich themselves.
- Mozzochi later sued the attorneys in a five-count action asserting, among other theories, abuse of process and legal malpractice based on their continued prosecution of the underlying suit.
- The trial court granted the attorneys’ motion to strike all counts for failure to state a claim and entered judgment for the attorneys; Mozzochi appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations that opposing counsel continued litigating after learning the client’s claim lacked merit state an abuse-of-process claim by showing process was used primarily for an improper purpose.
2. Whether an adversary in litigation may state a legal-malpractice claim against opposing counsel absent allegations establishing the adversary as a foreseeable third-party beneficiary of the legal services.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the defendant attorneys.
- The court held the complaint failed to state an abuse-of-process claim because it alleged, at most, continuation of litigation with improper motives, not misuse of judicial process to achieve a collateral objective.
- The court held the complaint failed to state a legal-malpractice claim because the attorneys owed no professional duty to an opposing party absent facts showing the plaintiff was a foreseeable third-party beneficiary of the representation.

## Legal Principles

- Abuse of process requires allegations that judicial process was used primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it was not designed; improper motive or pursuing a weak or meritless case, without misuse of process to obtain a collateral advantage, is insufficient.
- Attorneys generally owe a duty of professional care only to their clients; liability to non-clients is limited to situations where the non-client is a foreseeable third-party beneficiary of the legal services.
- An adverse party in litigation is ordinarily not an intended or foreseeable beneficiary of legal services provided to opposing counsel’s client.

## Conclusion

The court held that continuing litigation despite alleged knowledge of a claim’s lack of merit does not, without more, constitute abuse of process, and that an opposing party cannot sue opposing counsel for malpractice absent allegations establishing a duty through foreseeable third-party beneficiary status; the motion to strike was properly granted and the judgment was affirmed.


Mozzochi v. Beck, 204 Conn. 490, 529 A.2d 171 (Conn. 1987)