legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Grace v. Smith
This case involves two attorneys in a fee dispute relating to their successive representation of a client. After the case settled, Gregory W. Smith, the second attorney to represent the client, filed a declaratory relief action to determine the amount of fees owed to him and to Patricia J. Grace, the clients first attorney. Grace cross-complained in the declaratory relief action, seeking enforcement of her lien and alleging causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and intentional interference with economic advantage. Smith filed a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. (Subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) The trial court denied the motion, and Smith now appeals.
As we discuss below, the motion was properly denied because Graces cross-complaint did not arise from Smiths protected activity, but the underlying dispute between the parties as to their entitlement to attorney fees. Court therefore affirm the trial courts order denying the motion. We do not, however, find that Smiths appeal was frivolous within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statutes attorney fee provision, and therefore deny Graces motion for attorney fees.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale