Case Over Bar Group’s Private Defense System Is Not SLAPP

Wednesday, May 6, 2026

Page 3

Court of Appeal:

Case Over Bar Group’s Private Defense System Is Not SLAPP

Opinion Says Action Seeking Declaration That Trade Association’s Agreement to Run Program for County With No Public Defender’s Office Is Void as Involving Illegal Law Practice Does Not Implicate Protected Activity

By a MetNews Staff Writer

Div. One of the First District Court of Appeal has held that a trial judge did not err in denying an anti-SLAPP motion filed by a local bar association in a lawsuit accusing the group of illegally entering into contracts with San Mateo County to provide attorneys to indigent defendants, which the plaintiff asserts involve promises to engage in the unauthorized practice of law by a trade group and violate prohibitions in the defendant’s articles of incorporation.

Monday’s unpublished opinion, written by Justice Monique Langhorne Wilson, rejects the bar group’s characterization of the plaintiffs’ declaratory relief claims as being rooted in allegations relating to protected litigation conduct under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, found at Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, and declares that the causes of action arise out of the association’s unprotected contracting activities.

Sec. 425.16(b)(1) provides:

“A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech…in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”

Subdivision (e) specifies that such acts include certain litigation activities, such as “any…statement or writing made before a…judicial…or any other official proceeding” or one “made in connection with an issue under consideration or review” by a court, as well as speech in a “public forum in connection with an issue of public interest” and “any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or…of free speech.”

Private Defender Program

The so-called “Private Defender Program” (“PDP”) at issue is run by the San Mateo County Bar Association (“SMCBA”) and operates as the sole system to provide attorneys to indigent defendants in the county, which does not have a public defender’s office. The trade group purportedly receives approximately $21 million in taxpayer funding each year to pay for legal services to the poor.

In March 2024, one of SMCBA’s members, Rodney Sorensen of the Redwood City-based Sorensen Law Group P.C., filed a complaint against the association seeking a declaration that the “legal services agreement between SMCBA” and the county, as well as one with the superior court contemplating the provision of counsel for indigent parties in dependency proceedings, are “void for illegality” and as ultra vires acts. He alleged:

“[T]here are two independent fatal legal flaws to outsourcing the responsibilities of a Public Defender Officer to the SMCBA. First, pursuant to California law a trade association, like the SMCBA, is legally prohibited from performing the responsibilities of a Public Defender Office. Second, the agreements for legal services the SMCBA enters into with San Mateo County and the San Mateo County Superior Court are in violation of the SMCBA’s Articles of Incorporation and are thus void and unenforceable.”

Financial Benefits

Sorensen pointed to SMCBA’s publicly available tax return for the fiscal year ending June 2022, purportedly showing that some lawyers working for the PDP received in excess of $300,000 from the program. He attached copies of the association’s articles of incorporation, which he alleged contained provisions that prohibit the group from entering into any contract that results in its members receiving financial benefits.

After SMCBA filed a motion seeking to have all causes of action stricken under §425.16, San Mateo Superior Court Judge Timothy Schmal denied the request in December 2024, saying:

“The agreements and the relationships formed by them are relatively simple: essentially, the Association accepts millions in public funds each year to hire private attorneys for indigent…clients. Based on the evidence, the Association…is the intermediary between the client and counsel, pairing clients with qualified attorneys….The Association’s acts underlying plaintiff’s causes of action are acts of contracting—accepting funds in exchange for assigning counsel—not petitioning or engaging in free speech.”

Monday’s decision, joined in by Presiding Justice James M. Humes and Justice Charles A. Smiley, affirms the denial.

Protected Activities

Noting that the court must determine whether Sorensen’s claims “arise out of” protected activities, Langhorne Wilson said that “a defendant must do more than identify allegations of protected activity in the complaint” and must consider what conduct satisfies the elements required for liability.

Applying those principles, Langhorne Wilson opined:

“Sorensen’s claims for declaratory relief are based on a dispute that exists independent of the Association’s alleged practice of law. The complaint and each of its causes of action allege a controversy between the parties regarding whether the legal services agreements are void as an ultra vires act and/or because they ‘contemplate’ the unauthorized practice of law. Accordingly, Sorensen seeks a declaration that the legal services agreements are void.”

She continued:

“The agreements may have led to the Association providing legal representation to indigent parties, but Sorensen could have omitted allegations regarding the Association’s provision of legal services and still state his declaratory relief claims….Thus, the Association’s alleged practice of law is not the act supplying the basis for Sorensen’s declaratory relief claims.”

Legal Services

Rejecting the association’s assertion that the lawsuit arises out of the group’s provision of legal services, she remarked that the cases cited by the defendant involve conduct that was related to a specific dispute and commented:

“[T]he Association does not attempt to show that the legal services agreements themselves were ‘made in’ a judicial proceeding or in connection with ‘an issue under consideration or review’ by a judicial body….Nor has it demonstrated that at the time it entered into the legal services agreements, litigation was more than a mere possibility….Therefore, the Association has failed to demonstrate error.”

She declared:

“[T]he Association has not met its burden on prong one of the anti-SLAPP analysis as to Sorensen’s complaint. Because we conclude that the Association has not met its burden at the first step of the anti-SLAPP analysis, we do not reach step two.”

The case is Sorensen v. San Mateo County Bar Association, A172173.

Sorensen’s complaint comes at a time when public defender’s offices across the state are complaining of workload issues. Last year, the Los Angeles Alternate Public Defender’s Office declared itself “unavailable” to take on a stack of homicide cases referred to it by the Public Defender’s Office, asserting a lack of adequate staffing.

Last November, the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office declared a staffing crisis, claiming that there are too many cases for the current attorneys to handle. The office began declaring itself “unavailable” to take on new felony clients one day each week.

In March, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harry Dorfman declared San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju to be in contempt of court over the decision to turn down criminal cases and fined him $26,000. The imposition of the fine has been stayed pending appeal.

When a public defender’s office declares a conflict or its unavailability, the case is assigned to an alternate office or to a private attorney paid by the county.