The new Mendoza decision by the California Court of Appeal analyzes a case where a lawyer demanded $75,000 and said that if the demand wasn't met the matter would be reported to the prosecutors. No anti-SLAPP protection. No litigation privilege. No First Amendment protection.
American Lawyer Media has a nice article on the current state of play for anti-SLAPP protections. It notes that Judge Kozinski of the 9th Circuit rues the day that the federal courts decided to apply the anti-SLAPP protections in federal court.
(My two cents on ths issue: I litigated some clear-winner First Amendment defenses back in the day but could not get state trial courts to apply the law and dismiss the cases. We took writs and eventually got appellate courts to rule that the First Amendment really does apply at the pleading stage. Eventually the legislature passed anti-SLAPP statutes, which I like in principle. But I don't think they would be necessary if state trial courts had listened more carefully to all the appellate law about First Amendment rights.)