32 Trial Lawyer • Winter 2024 Preemptive Suit Continued from p 31 would be of interest to the broader public. A letter between two attorneys on a matter of purely private concern, for example, would not qualify as protected speech. For consideration A final word of caution — the antiSLAPP statute provides a weapon that can be used on behalf of our clients or against them. For example, a claim for civil intimidation might be an easy target for an anti-SLAPP claim, as is any claim for defamation. The statute requires that the plaintiff put on an early showing that they have a meritorious claim — it is therefore something to keep in mind when advising clients about whether to file suit. Does this type of claim target speech or petitioning activity? And, if so, does the claimant have what it takes to survive the motion? Ideally, the anti-SLAPP framework will achieve its legislative aim and prevent meritless litigation by encouraging folks to think twice before filing suit. For now, it is a fertile and uncertain battleground, as Oregon courts continue to grapple with the parameters of protected speech and activity. Elizabeth Savage specializes in personal injury, products liability, appellate work and family law. She operates Elizabeth Savage Law, 7805 SW 40th Ave, #80278 Portland, OR, 97219. She can be reached at [email protected] or 971430-4030. 1 The right to petition the government for the redress of grievances includes the right to bring suit, and includes litigation between private parties. By filing suit, a plaintiff petitions the judicial branch to redress a grievance, whether against the government or a third party. 2 Notably, ORS 31.150(2)(d) does not require that the speech be public in order to be protected, only that it be made in connection with an issue of public interest. Contrast ORS 31.150(2)(c) (requiring that the speech be made in a “public forum” or in “a place open to the public”).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTY1NDIzOQ==