Opinion ID: 2175682
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: bad faith or lack of substantial justification

Text: The parties are in agreement, and we concur, that the test for determining lack of substantial justification, which should be applied in the instant case, is whether Nilson had a reasonable basis for believing that the claims would generate an issue of fact for the fact finder. This test has been utilized by the Court of Special Appeals in several cases. For example in Needle v. White, 81 Md. App. at 476, 568 A.2d at 863, the Court of Special Appeals defined substantial justification as a reasonable basis for believing that a case will generate a factual issue for the fact-finder at trial. See also Newman v. Reilly, 314 Md. 364, 550 A.2d 959 (1988), where this Court stated that, to constitute substantial justification, the parties position should be fairly debatable and within the realm of legitimate advocacy. Id. at 381, 550 A.2d at 967-68. Additional guidelines are also found in the comment to Rule 3.1 of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, which states that an action is frivolous if the lawyer is unable either to make a good faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good faith argument for extension, modification or reversal of existing law. In bad faith means vexatiously, for the purpose of harassment or unreasonable delay, or for other improper reasons. See Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 2464, 65 L.Ed.2d 488, 501 (1980); Johnson v. Baker, 84 Md. App. 521, 581 A.2d 48, cert. denied, 322 Md. 131, 586 A.2d 13 (1990).