## Facts

- Steve Morton owned a watercolor, “Lassoing a Longhorn,” long believed to be a Charles M. Russell work and potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars if authentic.
- In 2000–2001, W. Steve Seltzer, a professional Western art appraiser and authenticator, examined the painting and concluded it was not by Russell but by Olaf Carl (“O.C.”) Seltzer, a less valuable attribution.
- Another expert, Ginger Renner, independently agreed with Seltzer’s conclusion.
- Morton expressed shock at the non-Russell attribution and, through correspondence, accused the original seller (Kennedy Galleries) of misrepresentation; dealers later refused to market the work as a Russell.
- Morton retained Dennis Gladwell and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, L.L.P. (GDC). Gladwell sent demand letters to Seltzer and Renner seeking retractions and threatening punitive-damages litigation.
- Morton, through GDC, sued Seltzer for defamation and related claims; Seltzer incurred substantial defense costs and alleged reputational and emotional harm.
- During discovery, Morton did not produce key correspondence bearing on his knowledge about authenticity despite requests seeking such materials.
- Seltzer moved for summary judgment supported by affidavits from multiple Western art experts; Morton and his lawyers later conceded they could not prevail, and the suit was dismissed with prejudice.
- Seltzer then sued Morton, Gladwell, and GDC for malicious prosecution and abuse of process based on the underlying litigation conduct.
- A jury found defendants liable on both torts, awarded $1.1 million compensatory damages, and awarded punitive damages of $100,000 (Morton), $150,000 (Gladwell), and $20 million (GDC); the trial court reduced GDC’s punitive award to $9.9 million.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the abuse-of-process claim.
2. Whether the evidence supported the jury’s malicious-prosecution verdict against each defendant, including the law firm.
3. Whether reducing GDC’s punitive award from $20 million to $9.9 million was error.
4. Whether the punitive damages, as reduced, were unconstitutionally excessive under federal due process standards.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the jury’s liability findings for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against Morton, Gladwell, and GDC.
- The Court held defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on abuse of process.
- The Court upheld the trial court’s reduction of GDC’s punitive damages from $20 million to $9.9 million.
- The Court held the reduced punitive award did not violate federal due process and affirmed the judgment in all respects.

## Legal Principles

- Malicious prosecution may be proven where a prior action terminates in the plaintiff’s favor and the defendant pursued the action without probable cause and with an improper motive, as supported by surrounding facts and litigation conduct.
- Abuse of process focuses on misuse of legal process for an improper purpose (such as coercing a retraction) rather than pursuing legitimate adjudication.
- Litigation tactics, including threatening demand letters and discovery nonproduction of material documents, may support findings of improper purpose and misuse of process.
- Punitive damages must satisfy Montana’s statutory framework and federal substantive due process limits; constitutional review considers reprehensibility, the punitive-to-compensatory ratio, and comparable sanctions.
- A sizeable punitive award may be sustained where conduct is highly reprehensible, harms include significant intangible injury, and deterrence against well-resourced defendants is a valid consideration within due process bounds.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a verdict that the defendants used litigation to pressure an art expert to retract an honest opinion, supporting malicious prosecution and abuse of process, and held that a reduced $9.9 million punitive award against the law firm was permissible under Montana law and federal due process.


Seltzer v. Morton, 336 Mont. 225 (Mont. 2007)