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
Founder and CEO
Reuben, Raucher & Blum
Phone: (310) 777-1990
Email: treuben@rrbattorneys.com
Reuben is the founder and CEO at Reuben Raucher & Blum. Alongside his extensive career as a civil litigator specializing in complex matters at both the trial and appellate level, he serves pro bono as a temporary judge and settlement officer for the Los Angeles Superior Court, as well as a fee arbitrator for the LA County Bar.
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