Qualified Immunity Protects Attorney
An attorney representing the parents of a pregnant minor, who purportedly misled her child's father about whether she intended to put the baby up for adoption, is not liable for intentional interference with the parental relationship absent any evidence that the lawyer acted maliciously, the Ohio Court of Appeals, 10th District, ruled Feb. 8 in Sprouse v. Eisenman, Ohio Court of Appeals 10th Dist., No. 04AP-416, 2/8/05).
The Court explained that even if the lawyer did falsely assure the father that adoption was not on the horizon, the attorney was protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because the baby's father failed to show that the lawyer had "an ulterior motive separate and apart from the good faith representation of the client's interests."
