Today's opinion is the latest installment of the controversy about changing the name of the "Hastings College of Law" to the "College of Law, San Francisco" on the grounds that S.C. Hastings -- the person who paid for and founded the law school -- did some really, really bad things.
I have a decent amount of familiarity with the quality of the briefs generally submitted by the competing law firms that represent the parties in this appeal. Defendants (the law school) are represented by Gibson Dunn. Plaintiffs (the people who want the old name) are represented by the Harmeet Dhillon Law Group.
One of those firms is much smarter -- and writes much, much better briefs -- than the other.
That said, here, the worse law firm is in the right -- and wins -- and the better law firm is in the wrong and loses.
Reasonable minds might perhaps differ on whether it's permissible for the law school to change its name given the underlying circumstances and contractual provisions regarding the creation and continuation of the school in 1878. Regardless, one thing is true: The lawsuit that contends that it's impermissible is not an anti-SLAPP suit that attempts to chill free speech.
Both the Court of Appeal and the trial court accordingly rightly held that the anti-SLAPP statute doesn't apply.
Indeed, truth be told, it's not even close.
So on to the merits.
