Although actions brought against attorneys by third parties for "litigation-related activities" are generally subject to California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the "anti-SLAPP statute"), actions brought against attorneys by former clients for the breach of a professional duty are not within the purview of section 425.16. (Benasra v. Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1179; Freeman v. Schack (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 719; PrediWave Corp. v. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1204; Castleman v. Sargaser (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 481; Loanvest I, LLC v. Utrecht (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 496; Jespersen v. Zubiate-Beauchamp (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 624, 627.)
A recent appellate decision extended that rule in a previously unclear area. In Sprengel v. Zbylut (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 140, the Court of Appeal went one step further when it held that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply even when an attorney-client relationship between the parties has not been established.
The Sprengel matter arose from a disagreement between Sprengel and her former business partner Mohr. Sprengel and Mohr had jointly formed the LLC Purposeful Press to market one of Sprengel's books. When the business partnership fell apart, Sprengel sued Mohr for involuntary dissolution and copyright infringement. Mohr was represented by Gregory Zbylit...
