Court of Appeal Holds No Anti-SLAPP Motion Even Where Attorney-Client Relationship Questionable

California courts have repeatedly held that the anti-SLAPP statute set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure §425.16 has no application where a client alleges breach of professional or ethical obligations by its attorney. In its decision filed October 13, 2015 in the case of Sprengel v. Zbylut, it has gone one step further to hold the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply even where the attorney-client relationship is not certain or yet proven.

In Sprengel, Sprengel and Mohr created an LLC for the purposes of marketing a book authored by Sprengel. When a dispute arose, Mohr retained a law firm (Zyblut) to represent the LLC for the purpose of …show more content…
She claimed an understanding between the lawyers and Mohr whereby the lawyers were to provide legal services for the benefit of Mohr under the pretext that the services were of benefit to the LLC. She further alleged the lawyers solicited payment from the LLC for legal services without her knowledge or consent. Sprengel alleged an implied attorney-client relationship with each attorney at the law firm based upon her status as a 50% owner of the …show more content…
In determining whether an action affects protected activity, the court first decides whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity by demonstrating is fits within one of the categories spelled our within CCP §425.16. If proven, the second step is for the court to determine whether plaintiff has demonstrated with reasonable probability that it will prevail at trial on the merits of the challenged