An attorney who was fired by a law firm for failing to maintain his required level of billable hours sued for wrongful termination against his employer and AIG, a client of his employer.
When disagreements regarding litigation-preparation strategies arose between the attorney and AIG while the lawyer was working on an AIG case, all cases involving AIG were pulled from the attorney.
Then, as a result of his lack of cases, the attorney was subsequently fired by his law firm for not having sufficient billable hours.
He then sued the law firm and AIG. In response, AIG filed an anti-SLAPP action against the attorney, arguing his claim against AIG involved protected activity - namely, how to handle litigation strategy - for which AIG could not be sued.
In this unpublished opinion the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that the anti-SLAPP laws were NOT intended for the facts in this lawsuit. It said the anti-SLAPP statutes might have applied if the allegations involved simply being fired for how the attorney was handling the case (since how the client wished to have its case handled would indeed amount to protected activity).
But, here, the allegations by the lawyer involved much more complicated facts which, if true, would amount to a retalliatory termination.
The attorney was claiming that he had been told by AIG not to prepare for a trial but only to try settling a particular case. When the settlement fell through, the lawyer told AIG's insureds what AIG had instructed him to do and these insureds complained to AIG, which in turn complained to the law firm, which in turn then fired the lawyer.
The Court ruled that such facts were far more than just the protected activity of how to litigate a case and thus were NOT covered under the anti-SLAPP statutes.
The case is Effron v. Amer. Internat. Group.
To read the full opinion,
PLEASE CLICK HERE.
- Help for the Injured Worker
