Drago v. Buonagurio, 46 N.Y.2d 778 (1978)

An attorney owes no fiduciary duty to an adversary’s client and is obligated to represent their own client with full adversarial vigor within proper professional bounds.

Summary

This case addresses the extent of an attorney’s duty to an adversary’s client. Drago, believing in the justice of his cause, sued Buonagurio’s law firm, alleging their zealous representation of their client was disturbing and offensive. The Court of Appeals held that an attorney owes no fiduciary duty to an adversary’s client and is obligated to represent their own client with full adversarial vigor, as long as their actions remain within proper professional bounds. The court emphasized that opinions and conclusory allegations are insufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment without evidentiary facts.

Facts

Drago sued Buonagurio’s law firm, claiming their representation of their client in a prior legal matter was excessively zealous and caused him distress.
Drago believed strongly in the righteousness of his legal position in the underlying case.
Drago’s complaint and opposing papers primarily contained opinions and conclusory allegations without sufficient evidentiary support.

Procedural History

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Buonagurio’s law firm, dismissing Drago’s claim.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Drago appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether an attorney owes a fiduciary duty to an adversary’s client, thereby limiting the vigor with which they can represent their own client.

Holding

No, because an attorney owes no fiduciary duty to an adversary’s client and is free, if not obligated, to carry out responsibilities to their own client with full adversarial vigor, so long as the steps taken are within proper professional bounds.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that an attorney’s primary duty is to their own client, not to the opposing party. The Court stated that as long as the attorney’s actions are within proper professional bounds, they are obligated to represent their client with full adversarial vigor. The court found no evidence that the respondents’ (Buonagurio’s firm) motivation or conduct was outside of these bounds. The court explicitly stated: “[A]n attorney at law, owing no fiduciary obligation to his adversary’s client, is free, if not obligated, so long as the steps he takes are within proper professional bounds, to carry out his responsibilities to his own client with full adversarial vigor.”
The Court also stated that Drago’s subjective beliefs and conclusory allegations were insufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment, which requires a showing of evidentiary facts, citing Capelin Assoc. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 341. The absence of such evidence justified the dismissal of the claim. The court did not find any inappropriate behavior on the part of the attorney that would warrant a departure from this principle.