Is there any evidence that Attorney Defendants had probable cause to commence the action?

Even if Attorney Defendants had probable cause to commence the action, there is evidence they continued to prosecute the action after discovering a lack of probable cause. For example, plaintiff points to his attorney's declaration, which states, "During the administrative hearing in about March and April of 2015 [one of the Attorney Defendants] openly acknowledged to me that he had no evidence relating to fraud or bribery, but flatly refused to dismiss [the] baseless allegations." Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we are required to do at this stage of the proceeding, the evidence supports an inference Attorney Defendants knew they lacked probable cause to continue to prosecute the action. (Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 32 Cal.4th 958, 970 [continuing to prosecute a claim after discovering there is no probable cause may support a malicious prosecution action].)⁴

Page 16