In Ramirez v. 164  West 146 Street LLC, the question is raised whether a tenant, illegally evicted because the warrant of eviction named a former landlord and not the current landlord may successfully sue the landlords’ attorney.  The answer is, no.  Justice York of Supreme Court, New York County sets forth the reasoning.

Plaintiff here sued all parties with the same causes of action.  In doing so, she sued the attorneys for "procuring the eviction" and "illegal lockout".  These causes of action, which might well be successful against the landlord [and which permit treble damages] may not be raised against attorneys.  Her claims against the attorneys may sound only in legal malpractice.

Here, the question of privity is raised, and it is dispositive against plaintiff.  Absent fraud or collusion, or a malicious or tortious act, a non-client may not sue her opponent’s attorney for legal malpractice.

The City Marshall, in the same position, finds himself in the same boat regarding his cross-claim.  No privity, no case.