|
3415 REVIEW GRANTED A trial court's order disqualifying counsel on the ground of apparent conflict of interest does not necessarily establish that a subsequent malpractice action against the disqualified attorney was brought with probable cause, particularly when the appellate court's reversal of the disqualification order was based on a finding that no reasonable person in the position of the party who sought the disqualification order and subsequently sued for malpractice could have believed that the attorney ever represented him/her; when the attorneys who had been sued for malpractice brought a subsequent action for malicious prosecution, it was error for the trial court to grant an anti-SLAPP motion on the ground that the disqualification order established probable cause for the malpractice action and prevented the malicious prosecution plaintiffs from making out a prima facie case.CitationSTROOCK & STROOCK v TENDLER (Unreasonable Judge) 102 CA4 318 [See: Sheldon Appel v Albert 47 C3 863; Stroock v Tendler (RhrgGrtd) 98 CA4 521, T/AT 6/02; Jarrow v LaMarche 97 CA4 1, T/AT 5/02; Roberts v Sentry 76 CA4 375, T/AT 12/99; Wilson v Parker 28 C4 811, T/AT 9/02]
|
|
