Civil Litigation
Oct. 21, 2015
Legal malpractice should be subject to anti-SLAPP
Putting aside arguments about the anti-SLAPP statute's flaws, it is simply true that by its terms, it should apply to a case against an attorney who is sued by his client for litigating a matter -- and what would be so bad about that?
Timothy D. Reuben
Reuben MediationTim Reuben spent more than 40 years handling complex legal disputes in California's state and federal courts. As the founder and managing partner of Reuben Raucher & Blum in Los Angeles, he has worked on a wide range of matters through jury and bench trials, arbitration, mediation, judicial reference, and settlement conferences across multiple areas of civil law, including commercial, real estate, construction, employment, intellectual property, insurance, professional liability, and unfair competition.
It is a rare but delightful thing to see an experienced, knowledgeable and highly respected appellate justice say about a line of appellate anti-SLAPP authority: " I do not agree those cases refusing to apply Section 425.16 to 'garden variety malpractice actions' were properly decided." Yet that is just what Justice Dennis Perluss, presiding justice of Division 7 of the 2nd District Court of Appeal, wrote in his well-reasoned dissent in Sprengel v. Zbylut, 2015 DJDAR 11364 (Oct. 1...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In