The Nevada Supreme Court

Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes allow defendants to file a special motion to dismiss lawsuits initiated to chill free speech. In this appeal, we consider whether statements sent to a listsery of email subscribers criticizing an attorney’s courtroom conduct and practices are protected as good-faith communications under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes. At issue are respondent Steve Sanson’s allegedly defamatory statements regarding appellant Jennifer Abrams conduct at and following a family court proceeding against opposing counsel, respondent Louis Schneider. We hold that such statements are protected and conclude that Sanson showed by a preponderance of the evidence that his statements were good-faith communications in furtherance of the right to free speech regarding a matter of public concern, except for his private telephone statements made to nonparty David Schoen. We further conclude that Abrams did not demonstrate with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on her claims. Therefore, we affirm in part and reverse in part the district court’s orders granting Sanson’s and Schneider’s special motions to dismiss.

Jennifer Abrams and Louis Schneider were opposing counsel in a family law case. Schneider allegedly gave a video of a closed-court hearing in that case th Steve Sanson, president of Veterans in Politics International, Inc. (VIPI). Sanson then published a series of articles on VIPI’s website concerning the judiciary and Abrams’ courtroom conduct and practices. The articles were also sent to VIPFs email subscribers and published through various social media outlets.

The court

Sanson’s statements depict and criticize Abrams behavior in court and towards Judge Elliott, which directly connects to the public’s interest in an attorney’s courtroom conduct. The public has an interest in an attorney’s courtroom conduct that is not mere curiosity, as it serves as a warning to both potential and current clients looking to hire or retain the lawyer…

We reject Abrams arguments that the manner in which an attorney represents clients in family law matters is not of public interest and only impacts a small, specific audience. An attorney’s behavior, especially toward judges and in judicial proceedings, implicates “[t]he operations of the courts” and is a “matter of utmost public concern.” See Del Papa v. Steffen, 112 Nev. 369, 374, 915 P.2d 245, 249 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Abrams’ contention that the conduct of family court proceedings does not concern the general public is mistaken. Sanson’s statements criticizing Abrams for allegedly acting badly in court and misbehaving towards a judge concern the public interest in attorney courtroom conduct. The statements also focus on her courtroom behavior rather than on a private controversy and rely on publicly available information rather than on private information. We therefore hold that Sanson’s statements made about Abrams’ courtroom conduct are “in direct connection with an issue of public interest” for purposes of Nevada’s antiSLAPP statutes.