Cited by

Co., –17 (1988); –19 ¶ 20 (App. 2008) (quotation omitted).

¶28 Generally, Arizona follows the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers in that “lawyers have no special privilege against civil suit.” ¶ 44 (App. 2008) (citing Safeway Ins.

See, ¶ 8 (2016); ¶ 32 (App. 2008).

¶ 40 n.7 (App. 2008) (“Failure to respond in an answering brief to a debatable issue constitutes confession of error.”) (citing Hecla Min.

¶6 To state a claim for wrongful institution of civil proceedings, the plaintiff must allege “that the defendant (1) instituted a civil action which was (2) motivated by malice, (3) begun [or maintained] without probable cause, (4) terminated in plaintiff’s favor and (5) damaged plaintiff.” ¶ 20 (App. 2008) (quotation omitted).

See Chalpin v. Snyder, 220 Ariz. 413, 418–19, ¶ 20 (App. 2008) (malicious prosecution claim requires that respondent “instituted a civil action” with malice and without probable cause) (emphasis added).

¶3 Dr. Trabucco had been embroiled in a series of unrelated and extremely contentious financial and legal disputes—including but not limited to post-divorce proceedings with his ex-wife, Pamela, and a 1 We recognize that civil malicious prosecution is often and perhaps more properly referred to as “wrongful institution of civil proceedings.” ¶ 20 n.5 (App. 2008) ( ¶ 5 n.1 (App. 1999)).

We will affirm the dismissal “if we are satisfied as a matter of law that plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” ¶ 18 (App. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

¶ 17, (citation omitted).

n.7, n.7 (App. 2008) (“Failure to respond in an answering brief to a debatable issue constitutes confession of error.”).

¶ 45, (holding that an attorney is not immune from an action for aiding and abetting the client’s torts when that attorney advises or assists the client in tortious acts).

P. 56(a), ¶ 17 (App. 2008)).

“Failure to respond in an answering brief to a debatable issue constitutes confession of error.” n.7, ¶ 40 (App. 2008).

¶ 17, (citation omitted).

¶ 17 , (citation omitted).

¶11 Establishing a cause of action for malicious prosecution of a civil proceeding requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant “(1) instituted a civil action which was (2) motivated by malice, (3) begun [or maintained] without probable cause, (4) terminated in plaintiff’s favor and (5) damaged plaintiff.” –19, ¶ 20, –72 (App. 2008) (quoting Bradshaw v. State Farm Mut.

¶¶ 13-14, 424 ¶ 45, 677 (App. 2008) (multiple tort claims against an attorney); Sec.