Do attorneys have expressly enumerated duties to adverse third parties? For example, are these listed in the Rules of Conduct, the Rules of Evidence, the Rules of Civil and of Criminal Procedure?

If these duties are express, how does one explain the privity obstacle to legal malpractice actions against lawyers by the adverse third party.

The “adverse third party” is a neutral term, implying the plaintiff should be able to sue the defense attorney for a frivolous defense. To deter.

The wrongful use of a civil procedure or the abuse of process claim requires jumping over the nearly impossible obstacle of proving malice or scienter or actual animus toward the adverse third party. Short of a recording of such, these never succeed, and are irrelevant.

How do the lawyers justify this self-dealt immunity?

As an insurance lawyer, you should support statutes enabling the application of the law of torts and of the Rules of Civil Procedure to the attorney in a legal malpractice case.

This is not loser pays. This is loser pays if an expert in his legal specialty certifies that the attorney has deviated from professonial standards of due care.