How have courts dealt with an anti-SLAPP motion brought by lawyers named in a malicious prosecution action?

We recently decided Daniels v. Robbins, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th 204 where we affirmed the grant of an anti-SLAPP motion brought by lawyers named in a malicious prosecution action. (Id. at p. 210.) The plaintiff argued the lawyers acted with malice in suing her in the underlying action because: the lawyers' client in the underlying action may have been motivated by ill will; there was "an apparent lack of evidentiary support for the factual allegations in the underlying action," the defendants could not respond to discovery, which showed a failure to investigate, and the lawyers' client in the underlying action required a waiver of any claims in exchange for dismissal of the action. (Id. at p. 227.) We held this was not sufficient as a matter of law to show malice on the part of defendant lawyers.