This decision affirms an order denying an Anti-SLAPP motion in this malicious prosecution case as to the plaintiff in the underlying case, but reverses as to that party’s attorneys. The prior action, a CEQA challenge to a project to build a school on property adjoining the underlying plaintiff’s horse ranch, lacked probable cause insofar as it alleged noise from the school was a significant environmental impact. The only evidence on the subject showed only that school noise might affect horse riders on the underlying plaintiff’s adjuoining property not that the noise would affect the environment in general. There was evidence of the underlying plaintiff’s malice. It had long opposed and thwarted any development of the school site. However, there was no evidence of the attorney’s malice. Lack of probable cause is insufficient alone to show malice. The client’s improper motives cannot be attributed to its attorneys absent evidence the attorneys knew of those improper motives.