SLAPP002 – Can Claims Against Lawyers Be Defeated with an Anti-SLAPP Motion?

California SLAPP Law Podcast

In the last episode of the California SLAPP Law Podcast, I explained how crucial it is for every California litigator to understand this sweeping area of the law. There is virtually no litigation practice that won’t be impacted by the anti-SLAPP statutes.

If that was not persuasive enough, let me bring in a little closer to home. In today’s episode I discuss the common causes of action that are pursued against attorneys, and examine which of those have been found to fall under the anti-SLAPP statutes. Can claims against lawyers be defeated with anti-SLAPP motions?

Here are the cases discussed in today’s show:

BLEAVINS v. DEMAREST (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1533; 127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 580.

In a neighbor dispute, court determined if a party to an action can sue the opposition’s attorney for malpractice.

OASIS WEST REALTY v. KENNETH GOLDMAN (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 688; 106 Cal.Rptr. 3d 539

Does an attorney breach the duty of loyalty owed a former client when he or she actively takes a position against the former client on the same issue for which the lawyer previously had been retained, even though the lawyer is acting on his or her own behalf and there is no subsequent representation or employment?

KOLAR v. DONAHUE, MCINTOSH & HAMMERTON (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 1532

Holding that legal malpractice actions are categorically outside the reach of the anti-SLAPP statute.

ZAMOS v. STROUD (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 60, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 484

A malicious prosecution action can be based only on the filing of a lawsuit.


Discusses breach of fiduciary duty action against law firm and the interplay of California’s SLAPP Law.

Leave a Reply

Aaron Morris, Attorney
Aaron Morris
Morris & Stone, LLP

Orchard Technology Park
11 Orchard Road, Suite 106
Lake Forest, CA 92630

(714) 954-0700

Email Aaron Morris
Information Helpful?
Buy me coffee
SLAPP Law Podcast

Click "Amazon Music" for all episodes of California SLAPP Law Podcast


NOTICE PURSUANT TO BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6158.3: The outcome of any case will depend on the facts specific to that case. Nothing contained in any portion of this web site should be taken as a representation of how your particular case would be concluded, or even that a case with similar facts will have a similar result. The result of any case discussed herein was dependent on the facts of that case, and the results will differ if based on different facts.

This site seeks to present legal issues in a hopefully entertaining manner. Hyperbolic language should not be taken literally. For example, if I refer to myself as the “Sultan of SLAPP” or the “Pharaoh of Free Speech,” it should not be assumed that I am actually a Sultan or a Pharaoh.

Factual summaries are entirely accurate in the sense of establishing the legal scenario, but are changed as necessary to protect the privacy of the clients.