Fear Not Law Articles: Walsh v. Kass

Walsh v

Walsh v. Kass

Filed 2/13/07 Walsh v. Kass CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

MARION WALSH,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

BRADLEY KASS et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

A112656

(San Francisco County

Super. Ct. No. CGC 04 431483)

Plaintiff Marion Walsh sued the attorney who represented her in a prior litigation, defendant Bradley Kass (Kass), and his law firm, defendant Kass & Kass, for legal malpractice in connection with Kass's handling of the prior litigation. Kass responded with a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure[1] section 425.16, contending that his conduct of the prior litigation constituted protected activity and that Walsh was unlikely to prevail in her malpractice action.[2] The trial court denied the special motion, concluding that the conduct on which this malpractice action is based does not constitute protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. We agree and affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

The complaint alleges that Kass, while a member of the law firm Kass & Kass, represented Walsh in a lawsuit, captioned Walsh v. LaFlamme (Super. Ct. S.F. City and County, 2003, No. 307780). In that lawsuit, Walsh alleged that she was assaulted and injured by a customer while working as a postal carrier. The suit was tried to a defense verdict. Walsh's claim in this lawsuit is that the defense verdict in Walsh v. LaFlamme resulted from Kass's professional malpractice.

Walsh alleges that Kass's representation was inadequate in the following ways: (1) Kass did not call any percipient witnesses at trial to confirm Walsh's account of the attack; (2) Kass did not adequately advise Walsh of the consequences of a rejection of a section 998 offer of compromise or a loss at trial, including the risk of entry of a judgment for costs; (3) Kass misbehaved at a settlement conference, exploding in anger at Walsh, throwing his briefcase, and â€

Description	Plaintiff sued the attorney who represented her in a prior litigation, defendant, and his law firm, defendant Kass & Kass, for legal malpractice in connection with Kass's handling of the prior litigation. Defendant responded with a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, contending that his conduct of the prior litigation constituted protected activity and that Walsh was unlikely to prevail in her malpractice action. The trial court denied the special motion, concluding that the conduct on which this malpractice action is based does not constitute protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. Court agree and affirm.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.