Lai

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 3

A. Factual Background Lai is an attorney licensed to practice in California.4 In 2016, Wang asked Lai to represent her in a dissolution action. According to Lai, Wang falsely told him that she did not have the funds to retain an attorney for the dissolution action; owed rent and lacked sufficient funds to buy food; and had not received any distribution of assets before her separation. Based on Wang’s assertions about her financial condition, Lai agreed to represent Wang under a “retainer agreement.” The agreement, titled “legal representation fee

3 We draw the following facts from the complaint that was the subject of the anti- SLAPP motions (the first amended complaint) and the supporting declarations submitted in the trial court. We accept Lai’s factual assertions as true for the purpose of resolving whether the trial court erred in its denial of the anti-SLAPP motions and consider only whether any contrary evidence from defendants establish their entitlement to prevail as a matter of law. (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1067.) 4 Lai is representing himself in this appeal.

2 agreement”…