Top Appellate Reversals: Malin v. Singer

Famed Los Angeles entertainment attorney Martin Singer is known for his aggressiveness. But in 2011, it looked like he stepped over the line when he sent Los Angeles restaurateur Mike Malin a draft of a lawsuit threatening to publicly reveal Malin's alleged misappropriation of more than $1 million, as well as use of company money to arrange sexual liaisons, if Malin didn't pay to settle the claims.

Malin, in turn, filed suit against Singer, his law partner and his client, accusing them of civil extortion, among other claims. Singer sought to have the suit dismissed on the grounds that all his claims were based on protected statements made in the litigation process. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mary Strobel refused.

An appellate court panel sided with Singer and his co-defendants in July. While the court agreed that Malin should be allowed to pursue his claims of computer hacking and illegal wiretapping, it threw out the most controversial claim - civil extortion.

"Singer's demand letter did not expressly threaten to disclose Malin's alleged wrongdoing to a prosecuting agency or the public at large," Justice Steven C. Suzukawa of 2nd District Court of Appeal, Division 4 wrote.

"The Court of Appeal's opinion makes clear that lawyers retain wide latitude in zealously advocating for their clients when sending pre-lawsuit demand letters," Singer's lead attorney Jeremy B. Rosen said.

The ACLU and Association of Southern California Defense Counsel filed amicus briefs supporting Singer.

In October, the state high court voted 5-2 not to hear Malin's appeal of that decision, leaving dead his claim of civil extortion. Malin v. Singer, 217 Cal. App. 4th 1283.

- EMILY GREEN

<!-- Top Appellate Reversals: Malin v. Singer -->