A recent California appellate court decision declined to revive a civil suit lodged against the plaintiff’s firm Potter Handy LLP by the district attorney’s offices of San Francisco and Los Angeles. The suit alleges Potter Handy of deceiving the court and, controversially, shaking down numerous businesses using factually unsupported disability rights lawsuits.
The appellate court found merit in a lower court’s previous decision, asserting that the litigation privilege applies to this case. The lower court’s ruling highlighted that Potter Handy’s actions were considered within the confines of the delivery of legal services and thus are protected by the litigation privilege.
Notwithstanding the controversy surrounding this case, Potter Handy LLP consistently stays at the forefront of disability rights cases in California. It remains to be seen whether this high-profile decision fuels further debates on the nature and use of litigation privilege, especially as it relates to widespread, concurrent lawsuits on a single justice issue such as disability rights.
For further details on the court’s decision, you can read the case report here. The application of litigation privilege in such cases is a crucial topic for legal professionals specializing in respective fields, much less for the American businesses grappling with waves of similar lawsuits.