These related appeals arose from Joe Rogers’s claims against attorneys who represented his former housekeeper after she alleged sexual harassment. Rogers alleged that the defendants used threatened litigation and related conduct to extort him and asserted other tort claims. The trial court dismissed some claims, denied dismissal of others, and applied Georgia’s anti-SLAPP statute to claims against one attorney. The Court of Appeals, sitting as a whole court, reversed the anti-SLAPP dismissal and issued a mixed ruling on the remaining motions. The opinion held that the pleadings had to be construed in Rogers’s favor at the motion-to-dismiss stage and that allegations of intentionally false or frivolous threatened litigation could, under the governing precedent, support a claim rather than be rejected as a mere threat to sue. The court also addressed the distinction between legal conclusions and well-pleaded facts, the statutory treatment of public-participation claims, and the separate claims against the attorneys. The complex disposition affirmed some rulings, reversed others, and left a dissenting view that the complaint did not allege a viable claim because the underlying sexual conduct was undisputed.