• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Contact
  • Reviews

California Defamation Law Blog

  • Home
  • About
  • Blogs
  • Archive Page
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Services
  • Contact Us
  • (626) 793-8607
You are here: Home / anti-SLAPP lawyer / Must attorney-client confidences be revealed in order to obtain attorney’s fees after a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

Must attorney-client confidences be revealed in order to obtain attorney’s fees after a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

June 15, 2022 by Adrianos Facchetti Leave a Comment

After prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion, counsel will file often file a separate motion for attorney’s fees and costs. In order to obtain a recovery, counsel has the burden to substantiate the fees and costs. While invoices are not required, courts often prefer them (or other detailed time entries).

One issue that comes up often is whether to redact attorney-client confidences in certain time entries. If too many entries are redacted, opposing counsel will complain, arguing that they cannot challenge the entries without knowing what they are. But on the other hand, you have a duty to protect client confidences. So what do you do? Unfortunately, there is not a lot of authority on this subject in the anti-SLAPP context. In Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1382, superseded by statute or other grounds, as stated in Metabolife Int’l, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (S.D. Cal. 2002), the court did suggest that defendant should not be required to waive the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protections in order to recover fees–but the discussion was minimal–in a footnote. Consequently, I believe the best practice is to redact entries and argue that defendant should not be forced to waive the attorney-client privilege in order to recover fees, particularly where plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal or a motion for reconsideration. Further, defendant should offer to submit sealed invoices for the court’s in camera review.

Buffer Share

Filed Under: anti-SLAPP lawyer, Attorneys' Fees Tagged With: Anti-SLAPP

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Some Featured

How to determine which costs are allowable in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion

Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

Recent Posts

Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law?

Does California’s anti-SLAPP statute apply in bankruptcy court?

May a court adjust the lodestar upward based on exceptional representation?

Follow Us On

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Search

Footer

California Defamation Law Blog

Law Offices of Adrianos Facchetti 4444 W. Riverside Drive, Suite 308, Burbank, CA 91505
California Defamation Lawyer & Attorney of Adrianos Facchetti Law Firm, offering services related to libel, internet defamation, slander, defamation of character, disparagement, anti-SLAPP, personal injury, car accidents, motorcycle accidents, trucking accidents, serving Los Angeles, San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, Pasadena, Burbank, Glendale, Arcadia, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Long Beach, Orange County, Ventura County, San Bernardino, and throughout California.

Recent Posts

  • How to determine which costs are allowable in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion July 18, 2022
  • Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion? June 28, 2022
  • May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion? June 24, 2022
  • Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law? June 20, 2022

Copyright © 2025 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in