In legal malpractice action, denial of special motion to strike brought under the anti-SLAPP statute is affirmed as: 1) legal malpractice is not an activity protected under the anti-SLAPP statute; 2) that the malpractice allegedly occurred in the course of petitioning activity does not mean the claim arose from the activity itself; 3) defendant failed to meet its initial burden; and 4) the litigation privilege does not bar legal malpractice claims based on a litigator's failure to provide competent representation in a prior lawsuit.