In this NJ Case, the client had an illetimate purpose in bringing the law suit.  Plaintiffs proved the case for malicious prosecution against the client, but not against  the client’s attorney.

Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla represented a beach club owner in a failed defamation suit against a neighbor. The neighbor, having won, countersued the club owner and the Middletown, N.J., firm, alleging the first suit had no purpose but to stifle her free speech rights maliciously.

The appeals court found, however, that lawyers cannot be liable for malicious prosecution unless they are acting for an illegitimate purpose of their own. And the fact that a client has an illegitimate purpose does not automatically mean the lawyer does too, the three-judge panel said in Lobiondo v. Schwartz, A-4325-04.

The decision "insures that representation will be available when the client’s claim has only marginal merit and may be pursued by the client for other than legitimate purposes," the court said."

"