Following Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170 and E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. Moses & Singer, LLP (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1140, this decision reverses a summary judgment for the defendant attorneys in this malpractice action based on the allegation that the attorneys failed to warn plaintiff of the disadvantages of bringing the underlying suit in California where the defendant could (and did) bring an Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss and obtained a substantial fee award against plaintiff.  Proving a case within a case is only one means of proving proximate causation in a legal malpractice case, and it doesn’t make sense to require the plaintiff to do so in a case in which he contends he never would have filed suit if properly advised about the risks of suing.  Instead, in that context, proximate cause is proven by showing that suit wouldn’t have been filed if proper advice had been given.