John B. Sullivan

John B. Sullivan is an attorney who has had success using California’s anti-SLAPP motions to defeat malicious prosecution and other third-party claims against attorneys over the last few years and in defending those rulings at the appellate level.

In one case, Sullivan was able to prevail on an anti-SLAPP motion despite the fact that the plaintiff had not only prevailed in the underlying action, but had obtained significant cost of proof sanctions in the underlying case based on its denial of certain requests for admission.

“Another rewarding recent result was resolving a legal malpractice action arising out of an intellectual property transaction during trial,” he said. “The plaintiff sought a significant damage award, but the case resolved during trial after we prevailed on a motion to preclude plaintiff’s main expert witness from testifying following a two-day evidentiary hearing.”

Sullivan also mentioned significant challenges they had to overcome, including convincing the court at the pleading stage that the law firm defendant had probable cause to bring the underlying action in light of the significant cost of proof sanction award in the underlying case.

He said another challenge was presenting a clear picture to the trial court of litigation that lasted several years and involved multiple motions, a trial, post-trial motions and an appeal. With regard to the intellectual property matter, one challenge for all lawyers who handle legal malpractice matters is that the attorney constantly has to master new areas of law.

“Often causation is proved through a trial of the issues involved in the underlying dispute,” Sullivan said. “Digging in and understanding the IP was a challenge, but an enjoyable one. Mastering the relevant aspects of our clients’ practices in the vast variety of areas in which they work is intellectually satisfying.”

Sullivan noted one trend he has witnessed is a continued increase in claims by third parties against attorneys.

“The law traditionally has limited the type of claims third parties can bring against someone else’s attorney for good reason — an attorney must be free to act as an advocate for his or her client,” he said. “For this reason, it is important for defendant-attorneys to continue to push back against third party claims, particularly those brought by adversaries or former adversaries of their clients, so that attorneys’ ability to represent their clients without concern of becoming the next defendant is not chipped away.”