## Facts

- Oasis West Realty, LLC, a developer, sought city approvals to redevelop a Beverly Hills property into a hotel and luxury condominiums.
- Oasis retained attorney Kenneth A. Goldman and his firm, Reed Smith LLP, to assist in obtaining approvals from the Beverly Hills City Council.
- Goldman ended the attorney-client relationship roughly two years later.
- After the City Council approved the project, a referendum campaign arose to overturn the approval.
- Goldman participated in the opposition effort, including soliciting signatures and speaking to residents against the project.
- Oasis alleged Goldman used skills, information, and strategic knowledge acquired during the representation to oppose the same project that had been the subject of his legal work for Oasis.
- The referendum failed by a narrow margin.
- Oasis sued Goldman and Reed Smith for breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, and breach of contract, seeking damages for alleged delay and increased costs caused by the referendum challenge.

## Issues

1. Whether Oasis’s claims arose from Goldman’s protected petitioning and free-speech activity under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16.
2. If the anti-SLAPP statute applied, whether Oasis showed a probability of prevailing (minimal merit) on claims based on an attorney’s continuing duties to a former client.
3. Whether an attorney may, consistent with duties of loyalty and confidentiality, campaign against a former client’s objectives in the same matter as the prior representation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California held the anti-SLAPP statute applied because the claims arose from Goldman’s petitioning and speech regarding a public issue.
- The court nevertheless ruled Oasis satisfied the second prong by making a prima facie showing that its claims had at least minimal merit.
- The court reversed the Court of Appeal’s order granting the anti-SLAPP motion and remanded for further proceedings, allowing Oasis’s claims to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Anti-SLAPP analysis is a two-step inquiry: (1) the defendant must show the challenged claims arise from protected petitioning or speech; (2) the plaintiff must show a probability of prevailing by demonstrating legal sufficiency and a prima facie factual showing, credited at this stage.
- An attorney’s duties of loyalty and confidentiality to a client continue after representation ends.
- An attorney may be liable for acting adversely to a former client on an ongoing matter that is the same matter as the prior representation, including by using (or risking use of) confidential information or representation-derived knowledge against the former client.
- The fact that alleged misconduct is carried out through speech or petitioning does not bar liability when the conduct independently constitutes a breach of professional duties.

## Conclusion

Protected petitioning activity can trigger anti-SLAPP scrutiny, but a former client may defeat an anti-SLAPP motion by showing minimal merit that a former attorney breached continuing duties of loyalty and confidentiality by opposing the client in the same matter as the prior representation.


Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal. 4th 811 (Cal. 2011)