As we explained in our case summary, the question in this case was whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claim under Judiciary Law § 487. The Court (DiFiore, J.), held that dismissal was appropriate because plaintiffs failed to allege knowingly false statements made by defendant during the course of litigation.
The majority noted that, much like fraud statutes, Judiciary Law § 487 makes attorneys liable for false statements made with scienter. But the statute was not simply a codification of common law fraud. On the contrary, liability under Judiciary Law § 487 differed from traditional fraud in significant ways, including that it applied only to false statements made during litigation. This was because the purpose of the statute was “to safeguard an attorney’s special obligation of honesty and fair dealing in the course of litigation.” Thus, a pair of earlier decisions held that allegedly false statements made to induce a party to commence a lawsuit were not actionable, but allegedly false statements made once a lawsuit had been commenced “fell squarely within the scope of the statute.” And because plaintiffs in this case alleged only that defendants made false statements to induce them to file a meritless lawsuit, the majority held that defendants were entitled to a judgment of dismissal as a matter of law.
In reaching this conclusion, the majority emphasized that Judiciary Law § 487 did not seek to “curtail attorneys’ expressions of views concerning what the law is or should be.” Nor was the statute intended to punish “poor lawyering, negligent legal research or the giving of questionable legal advice.” Such “attorney shortcomings” should be addressed through other mechanisms, such as “litigation sanctions, attorney misconduct proceedings and legal malpractice actions.”
Judge Rivera dissented. The dissent agreed that liability under Judiciary Law § 487 was limited to attorney deceit in the course of litigation. But in the dissent’s view, “filing and pursing a knowing frivolous lawsuit” constituted a deceit on the court that fell within the statute’s coverage. As the dissent explained, “an attorney who files a frivolous lawsuit with full knowledge that the action is groundless and nevertheless intends to deceive the court as to the viability of the claims asserted therein to achieve the nonlegitimate end of solely charging legal fees, commits a deceit that imperils the integrity of the courts and undermines their truth-seeking function.” Such a situation was different, the dissent explained, from an attorney who takes action in her client’s best interests based on the attorney’s (perhaps mistaken) understanding of the law. The dissent assured that good faith lawyering was not a basis for liability under Judiciary Law § 487; but in the dissent’s view, filing an action the attorney knew was groundless should result in liability under the statute.
Return to the case page for Bill Birds, Inc. v. Stein Law Firm P.C.