Fee Dispute Not Elevated To The Constitutional Arena.

Both parties are lawyers.  The defendant first represented a man in a personal injury lawsuit. When defendant withdrew from representation, plaintiff represented the man. Defendant asserted an attorney fee lien, informing one of the insurers in the personal injury case that any payment of funds was subject to a lien for defendant’s fees. Plaintiff negotiated a settlement, and the insurance company made the check payable to the injured man and defendant. Plaintiff filed the present declaratory relief action to determine the status of defendant’s lien. Defendant filed a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court denied the motion, finding the gravamen of the declaratory relief complaint was not protected activity. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying the motion, reasoning the assertion of the lien was a statement made in anticipation of litigation, and that plaintiff’s declaratory relief action therefore targeted protected activity. In affirming the order denying the motion, the appellate court stated: “None of the purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute would be served by elevating a fee dispute to the constitutional arena, thereby requiring a party seeking a declaration of rights under an attorney lien to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits in order to obtain equitable relief.” (Drell v. Cohen (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 8; December 5, 2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 24, [181 Cal.Rptr.3d 191].)