Can an attorney be liable for malicious prosecution if a lawsuit was found to be without probable cause?

Like the court of appeal in Paiva v. Nichols, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th 1007, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 838, we believe that there may be situations in which a client, as well as an attorney, can be liable for malicious prosecution when a lawsuit initiated with probable cause later is discoveredbecause of new facts, or a change in the lawnot to have even a tenable basis, and thus becomes a meritless action without probable cause. We are not confronted with such a situation here, however, because we conclude that probable cause existed throughout.