In Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, the California Supreme Court analogized the lack-of-probable-cause element in a malicious prosecution action to a frivolous appeal. (Ibid.) The court held that for purposes of malicious prosecution, a claim is asserted with probable cause if it is "legally tenable"--that is, if "any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable." (Sheldon Appel, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 886.) A claimant lacks probable cause "only if 'any reasonable attorney would agree that the claim is totally and completely without merit.' " (Id. at p. 885) The tort of malicious prosecution "has traditionally been regarded as a disfavored cause of action." (Sheldon Appel, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 872) Accordingly, "the elements of the tort historically have been carefully circumscribed so that litigants with potentially valid claims will not be deterred from bringing their claims to court by the prospect of a subsequent malicious prosecution claim." (Sheldon Appel, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 872.) One of the "carefully circumscribed" elements a malicious prosecution plaintiff must prove--and the only element at issue on this appeal is--that the defendant lacked probable cause to bring the underlying claim. (Id. at p. 871.)