Philipson & Simon v. Gulsvig
Sometimes lawyers seem to forget that, in their professional capacities, they owe a duty of loyalty to their clients even when they no longer like them. And when a lawyer becomes convinced his client is on the wrong side of a particular legal dispute, the lawyer generally has the option of staying out of that dispute. He does not, however, have the option of switching sides and suing a client on behalf of a third party, alleging that the very settlement he obtained for the client in prior litigation actually belongs to the third party. And when the client objects to such an attempt, and sues the lawyer for breach of his professional obligations, the lawyer probably shouldnt cross complain back against her, apparently outraged that she has dragged him into the controversy and caused him to expend money to defend himself.
Court reverse the courts order denying the clients anti-SLAPP motion, and remand the case with directions to grant the motion as to the law firms causes of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Court also direct the court to reconsider the issue of attorney fees under the anti-SLAPP statute in light of that changed circumstance.
Comments on Philipson & Simon v. Gulsvig