In an action for malicious prosecution, the lower court entered summary judgment for the defendant Goldstein, an attorney who had filed a malpractice claim on behalf of a client against the plaintiff-appellant, an osteopathic physician. We do not decide whether such a case can ever be successfully maintained,1 because the record demonstrates conclusively that there was neither a want of probable cause nor malice in Gold-stein’s pursuit of the original proceeding against the appellant. See City of Pensacola v. Owens, 369 So.2d 328 (Fla. 1979); Ammerman v. Newman, 384 A.2d 637 (D.C. 1978); Carroll v. Kalar, 112 Ariz. 595, 545 P.2d 411 (1976); Spencer v. Burglass, 337 So.2d 596 (La.App. 1976), writ denied, 340 So.2d 990 (La. 1977); Tool Research and Engineering Corp. v. Henigson, 46 Cal.App.3d 675, 120 Cal.Rptr. 291 (1975).

Affirmed.