## Facts

- Edmond H. Plante and Curtis Plante, as trustees of a realty trust, developed a residential subdivision in Bolton, Massachusetts and obtained approvals and septic permits.
- A boundary/title dispute arose with neighboring landowners (the Elas), who claimed ownership of part of the developed area.
- The Bolton Conservation Trust became involved in the dispute; David A. Wylie represented the Trust.
- Wylie communicated with the Plantes about the title dispute, including a letter summarizing a meeting and warning of potential consequences if development continued.
- The Plantes sought governmental approval to expand the subdivision; at planning board proceedings, Wylie (for the Trust) challenged the Plantes’ title.
- The Elas conveyed to the Trust the portion of property that included the disputed area; an engineer retained by the Trust concluded the Trust owned about 7.5 acres claimed by the Plantes.
- Wylie sent a settlement proposal offering to release claims to already-sold developed land in exchange for the Plantes relinquishing certain contested lots and paying costs and attorneys’ fees.
- After construction began on disputed land, Wylie filed suit in the Land Court for the Trust and obtained a preliminary injunction halting work.
- The Plantes sued Wylie personally in Superior Court, asserting claims under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, federal RICO, and G.L. c. 93A, based on his communications and related actions taken as counsel.
- Wylie filed a special motion to dismiss under the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP statute, G.L. c. 231, § 59H; the trial court denied the motion, and Wylie appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney sued for conduct undertaken while representing a petitioning client may seek dismissal under G.L. c. 231, § 59H.
2. Whether the claims against the attorney were “based solely on” protected petitioning activity, including prelitigation and settlement communications connected to governmental proceedings.
3. Whether the plaintiffs met their burden to defeat the anti-SLAPP motion by showing the petitioning was devoid of reasonable factual support or arguable legal basis and caused actual injury.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court reversed the order denying the special motion to dismiss and directed allowance of the motion.
- The court held that attorneys representing petitioning clients may invoke § 59H because suits against counsel can chill the client’s petitioning and right to representation.
- The court concluded the challenged communications and litigation steps, including the settlement letter, were protected petitioning because they were made “in connection with” subdivision issues under governmental consideration and related judicial proceedings.
- The court held the action was based solely on petitioning activity, with no substantial non-petitioning basis.
- The plaintiffs failed to show Wylie’s petitioning was devoid of reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law; the record reflected a concrete title dispute, supporting evidence (including an engineer’s conclusions), and issuance of a preliminary injunction.

## Legal Principles

- Massachusetts’ anti-SLAPP statute, G.L. c. 231, § 59H, may be used by an attorney sued for actions taken on behalf of a client engaged in petitioning activity.
- “Petitioning” under § 59H includes statements and communications made in connection with issues under consideration by governmental bodies and courts, and can include prelitigation and settlement communications tied to such proceedings.
- Once a defendant shows the claims are based solely on petitioning activity, the plaintiff must show (1) the petitioning is devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law, and (2) the petitioning caused actual injury.

## Conclusion

The Massachusetts Appeals Court required dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statute where developers sued opposing counsel based on communications and legal actions connected to land-use and title disputes being addressed in governmental and judicial forums, and the plaintiffs failed to show the petitioning was baseless and injurious as required by § 59H.


Plante v. Wylie, 824 N.E.2d 461 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005)