In Fremont Reorganizing Corp. v. Faigin (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1153, which held a legal malpractice claim against a client's former attorney to be within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute, the attorney's alleged misdeed was not the assertion of a claim on behalf of the former client. (Id. at pp. 1162, 1171.) The former client alleged that the attorney had breached his obligations to him by reporting to California's Insurance Commissioner, acting as liquidator of an insolvent insurer, that the former client was in the process of auctioning artworks that the attorney falsely represented were owned by the insolvent insurer. In Fremont Reorganizing Corp. v. Faigin, the plaintiff argued that statements by the defendant lawyer to the Insurance Commissioner violated his duties of confidentiality and loyalty owed to the plaintiff as a former client, so his conduct was illegal and could not be protected activity under the Flatley rule. The court, in an opinion by Justice Croskey, disagreed, citing several Court of Appeal opinions, including Mendoza, that "have rejected attempts to apply the rule from Flatley ... to noncriminal conduct." (Id., at p. 1169, citation omitted.) Fremont held, "consistent with these authorities," that "the rule from Flatley ... is limited to criminal conduct. Conduct in violation of an attorney's duties of confidentiality and loyalty to a former client cannot be 'illegal as a matter of law' ... within the meaning of Flatley, so the anti-SLAPP statute is not inapplicable on this basis." (Ibid.)