It started out the usual way. Lawyer had the temerity to sue client for fees, and client promptly cross-complained for legal malpractice in the handling of the underlying marital dissolution action. Lawyer turned around and cross-complained against other lawyers who gave counsel in the settlement of the underlying action. The trial court granted a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute [CCP §425.16] and dismissed the lawyer’s cross-complaint. The appellate court reversed the order striking the cross-complaint, stating “the claim does not involve activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.” Chodos v. Cole (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 5; October 25, 2012) (As Mod., November 7, 2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 692.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.