When an Anti-SLAPP motion attacks a mixed cause of action, the motion must identify the portions of the cause of action that allege protected activity, but when the motion attacks an entire cause of action, it does not need to identify the activity at issue, since by default it claims that all activity mentioned in the cause of action is protected.  Here, the motion attacked an intentional interference with contract claim based on a successor attorney’s advice to a client not to file the complaint which the plaintiff attorney had drafted for the client under the terms of a contingent fee contract.  The decision holds that the advice given to a potential litigant is protected activity.  And the plaintiff had no probability of success on the claim since the successor attorney’s advice was protected by the litigation privilege under Civ. Code 47(b).)