Anti-SLAPP Law Does Not Protect Civil Extortion by Attorneys


Despite the prohibitions against doing so, some attorneys can’t resist throwing a threat of criminal action into their demand letters. They apparently think (if they give it any thought at all) that an express or veiled threat of criminal action will be protected under the litigation privilege, but that is not the case. As the recent case of Miguel Mendoza v. Reed K. Hamzeh illustrates, if an attorney includes a demand for money in a letter that threatens to pursue criminal action, he or she has committed extortion. As the earlier case of Flatley v. Mauro held, under that circumstance an attorney demand letter is not protected speech because criminal acts are not protected. In such a case, an anti-SLAPP motion will be of no avail, and as the court held in Miguel Mendoza v. Reed K. Hamzeh, such a motion will be viewed as frivolous.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Business Torts Updates, Civil Procedure Updates, Civil Remedies Updates, Civil Rights Updates, Constitutional Law Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Aaron Morris, Morris & Stone, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »