Attorneys Should Have Latitude To Represent Clients In Settlement Activities Without Fear Of Suits By Third Parties, Including the Beneficiary of the Settlement Funds.
In Ramirez v. McCormack, Case No. B340986 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 8, 2025) (published), the appellate court vindicated that attorneys representing their clients in a settlement agreement generally do not have to answer to third parties in making sure the settlement is consummated in a fair manner. What happened here is that an attorney representing settling parties balked at sending the settlement check to a different address than the settlement beneficiary’s counsel. The settlement beneficiary sued on various tort theories, with attorney moving to SLAPP the beneficiary’s complaint. The lower court denied the SLAPP motion, but that all changed on appeal.
The 2/8 DCA, in an opinion authored by Justice Wiley, reversed. It found the attorney’s activities were protected because they related to her representation of the client as against a third party, endorsing the same conclusion reached in Thayer v. Kabateck Brown Keller LLP, 207 Cal.App.4th 145, 158 (2012). Based on that reversal, directions were issued to grant the SLAPP motion and determine the reasonable fees/costs to attorney as prevailing party.