Attorney Search
Advocacy at a Higher Level

Horvitz & Levy is a solutions-based firm focused on appellate success. We are distinguished by our commitment to responsive service and on-going innovation in the areas of civil appellate litigation, amicus curiae support, and trial strategy consultation.

Our firm history, honors and awards, and locations speak to our collaborative approach and commitment to serving clients as well as the outstanding legal resources we bring to bear.


View Opinion View Opinion

Horvitz & Levy LLP represented appellant PrediWave Corporation in this appeal in which the California Court of Appeal reinstated PrediWave’s $2 billion malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit against its former attorneys. PrediWave’s lawsuit alleges that Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP and two of its partners represented PrediWave at the same time that they also represented PrediWave’s then-CEO. PrediWave alleges that during that time, PrediWave’s CEO looted the company of tens of millions of dollars. That looting eventually led to a lawsuit by a major shareholder and a $2.8 billion judgment against PrediWave, which drove the company into bankruptcy. According to the complaint in the present lawsuit against Simpson Thacher, the defendants had an irreconcilable conflict of interest when they represented both the company and its CEO, which caused defendants to take actions purportedly on behalf of PrediWave that had the effect of preventing the CEO’s fraud from being uncovered sooner. 

The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss PrediWave’s claims as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that “the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to lawsuits brought by a client against their own lawyer for alleged problems with that representation.” As the court noted, “clients do not bring such lawsuits to deter the speech and petitioning activities done by their own attorneys on their behalf but rather to complain about the quality of their former attorney’ performance.” The case can now proceed to trial on the merits in the Superior Court.