It's About The Attorneys Fees . . .
Attorney Richard Pech, in pro per, sued attorneys Stephen Doniger and Alan Burroughs, alleging that Doniger and Burroughs advised Pech's client not to file a complaint Pech drafted, thereby depriving Pech of the ability to collect attorney's fees. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion and were able to strike a cause of action for interference with contract, on the grounds that their advice to Pech was protected and that Pech was unlikely to win on the merits. The trial court's order granting the anti-SLAPP motion was affirmed on appeal. Pech v. Doniger et al, B309781 (2/5 2/18/22) (Moor, Rubin, Kim).
COMMENT: We know that the granting of an anti-SLAPP motion risks shifting motion-related fees incurred by the successful party on to the loser. What is somewhat unusual, though not unique, about this case, is that the protected activity itself related to an underlying fee dispute, since Pech claimed that the advice of the new attorneys to Pech's client caused him to lose attorneys fees. What was protected here through the anti-SLAPP motion was the new attorneys' (alleged) advice to file the complaint drafted by Pech. And the court did not have to decide whether such advice was actually given, concluding that if it had been given, it would have been protected speech.
Interestingly, in an earlier appeal involving the clients, the Court of Appeal had concluded: "The clients were entitled to control their litigation activities by instructing Pech not to file the complaint that he had drafted for them, but we concluded the clients’ instruction not to file a complaint was not an exercise of their right to petition. Therefore, the clients’ conduct at issue in Pech I was not the type of activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute."
Comments