value of their attorney’s services. Decided June 30, 2011 Reconsideration dismissed July 22, 2011 Jesse W. Hill, for appellants. Mark E. Scott, for appellees. Judgment affirmed. Phipps, P. J., and Andrews, J., concur. 1 The anti-SLAPP statute, OCGA § 9-11-11.1, imposes prerequisites to the filing of a lawsuit that has been asserted against a person or entity arising from an act by that person or entity which could reasonably be construed as an act in furtherance of the right of free speech or the right to petition government for a redress of grievances under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Georgia in connection with an issue of public interest or concern. See Atlanta Humane Soc’y v. Harkins, 278 Ga. 451, 452-54 (1) (603 SE2d 289) (2004) (<HOLDING>). 2 The investigator testified that, like many
holding claim of unconscionability requires showing of both procedural and substantive elements holding that standard of review is a matter of procedural rather than substantive law recognizing that ocga  911111 embodies both a procedural and substantive component recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim holding that ocga  911111 offers substantive protection beyond the procedural consideration related to the timing of the filing of the verification