Overview

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-In ruling on a special motion to strike under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, the trial court did not err in finding the evidence insufficient to prove that an attorney had commercial purpose and intent under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.17, subd. (c)(1), (2), in speaking with a reporter about a settled case because the reporter’s article was not shown to have generated any leads for the law firm; [2]-Although the settlement agreement stated that the parties and their attorneys agreed to keep the settlement confidential, the clients could not act as agents to bind the attorneys under Civ. Code, § 2337, nor did the attorneys manifest intent to be bound by signing under the words “approved as to form and content,” and thus the attorneys were not parties to the settlement agreement and there was no probability of prevailing against them on a cause of action for breach of contract.

Nakase Law Firm define laborale

Outcome

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.