No SLAPP Privilege

Article

No SLAPP Privilege for Client in Calif. Suit By Fired Former Counsel

The National Law Journal
Jan 13, 2009
By Martha Nei

A litigation privilege recognized in a California statutory scheme intended to protect citizen participation in civic matters didn't apply to a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by a nonequity partner against his former law firm and client, a state appellate court has ruled.

Agreeing with a trial court's determination that communications between attorney Gary Effron and his then-client, American International Group, weren't privileged, the California Court of Appeal found that the trial court hence had correctly denied a defense motion to strike Effron's complaint. The privilege didn't apply, the appeals court said, because Effron's claims arose out of alleged retaliation against him rather than settlement discussions concerning the underlying case, reports the National Law Journal.

In addition to the mega-insurer, Effron's lawsuit also names his former firm, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, and AIG Technical Services as defendants. It claims that he was fired from his nonequity partnership there because of a lack of billable hours after he was removed from AIG matters. This alleged removal followed a 2004 case in which Effron defended two AIG policyholders, the National Law Journal article recounts:

Effron alleges in his suit that less than two weeks before trial, an equity partner at Lewis Brisbois told Effron, at AIG's direction, not to prepare for trial but to settle the case. After the settlement was rejected by the plaintiffs suing Effron's clients, Effron told them about AIG's settlement instruction, according to the Dec. 31 decision by the appellate court. Effron says AIG then complained to the law firm about his disclosure to the clients. Effron says he was removed from handling AIG matters, and he was terminated in July 2006.

The California SLAPP structure is described on a California Anti-SLAPP Project website.

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.