The defendant lawyers brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim against them for professional negligence under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff, a lender in a private mortgage transaction, alleged that the defendant lawyers, who represented the borrower, owed it a duty of care and failed to conduct adequate due diligence.
The court granted the motion, finding that opposing counsel generally owe no duty of care to an opposing party, especially when both parties are represented by independent counsel.
The court concluded that there was no special relationship or sufficient proximity to establish a duty of care, and struck the pleadings against the defendant lawyers.
