California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Sprengel v. Zbylut, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 407, 241 Cal.App.4th 140 (Cal. App. 2015):
adversary] while obtaining sensitive information of benefit to [the adversary] in its lawsuit against plaintiffs]; Chodos v. Cole(2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 692, 702, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 451[ California courts have held that when a claim [by a client against a lawyer] is based on a breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty or negligence, it does not concern a right of petition or free speech, though those activities arose from the filing, prosecution of and statements made in the course of the client's lawsuit. The reason is that the lawsuit concerns a breach of duty that does not depend on the exercise of a constitutional right ].) Our courts have similarly concluded that malpractice claims that challenge the competency of an attorney's legal services are
[241 Cal.App.4th 155]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.