(Smith v. Hatch, 271 Cal.App.2d 39, 50 [76 Cal.Rptr. 350]; Friedman v. Knecht, 248 Cal.App.2d 455, 462 [56 Cal.Rptr. 540].) As any competent attorney is aware, access to the courts is not an end in itself but only one means to achieve satisfaction for a client. If this can be obtained without resort to the courts—even without the filing of a lawsuit—it is incumbent upon the attorney to pursue such a course of action first. (See ABA Code of Prof. Ethics, canon 15; Cal. State Bar, Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 6-101(2).) It is equally well established legal practice to communicate promptly with a potential adversary, setting out the claims made upon him, urging settlement, and warning of the alternative of judicial action. (See 4 Cal. Practice (1968 ed.) Sett p.3d 1, 25 [105 Cal.Rptr. 414] (<HOLDING>).) The Restatement also describes the privilege
holding that statements typically found in an attorneys demand letter related to an imminent judicial proceeding absolutely privileged holding that prosecutors defamatory statements to the press after plaintiff was pardoned were absolutely privileged holding absolutely privileged the filing of a mechanics lien prior to the judicial proceeding to foreclose it holding demand letter written prior to and during litigation absolutely privileged holding absolutely privileged a communication to an administrative agency designed to prompt action by that agency