## Facts

- James P. Hayes, an attorney, represented a decedent’s estate in a medical-malpractice wrongful-death action against Dr. Michael Wilson and Dr. Kathleen Wilson.
- The malpractice action ended without trial and terminated in the doctors’ favor.
- After the malpractice case concluded, the Wilsons sued Hayes for malicious prosecution and abuse of process, alleging he lacked a reasonable basis to pursue the malpractice claims and used the litigation to harass or pressure them.
- The district court held a bench trial, made detailed factual findings, and dismissed both tort claims for failure of proof.
- The Wilsons appealed the dismissal; Hayes filed a cross-appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the Wilsons proved malicious prosecution, including absence of probable cause and malice, based on Hayes’s filing and pursuit of the prior malpractice action.
2. Whether Hayes committed abuse of process by using legal process primarily to obtain an improper collateral objective rather than adjudication on the merits.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of both claims.
- The court held the Wilsons failed to prove absence of probable cause for the prior malpractice suit, defeating malicious prosecution.
- The court held the Wilsons failed to prove abuse of process because they did not show misuse of any specific legal process for a collateral purpose.
- Hayes’s cross-appeal did not alter the outcome.

## Legal Principles

- Malicious prosecution requires: (1) initiation or continuation of a prior action by defendant, (2) favorable termination for plaintiff, (3) lack of probable cause, (4) malice, and (5) damages.
- In assessing probable cause against an attorney, the question is whether a reasonably prudent attorney, based on information available when the suit was filed or continued, could believe the claim was tenable.
- Because malicious prosecution is disfavored, liability is not imposed merely because the underlying suit was weak or unsuccessful; proof of want of probable cause is demanding.
- Abuse of process requires use of legal process primarily for a purpose other than that for which the process is designed, typically to obtain a collateral advantage.
- Improper motive in filing or maintaining a lawsuit, without misuse of a particular process after issuance, does not establish abuse of process.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the attorney because the prior malpractice action was supported by probable cause on the information he gathered, and the record did not show any specific procedural tool was used to secure a collateral objective unrelated to adjudication on the merits.


Wilson v. Hayes, 464 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 1990)