(Based on The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct Formal Opinion No. 2016-195.)
One of the most important duties of an attorney is to preserve the secrets of his client, and “[n]o rule in the ethics of the legal profession is better established nor more rigorously enforced than this one.” (Wutchumna Water Co. v. Bailey (1932) 216 Cal. 564, 572.)
Preserving the confidentiality of client information contributes to the trust that is the hallmark of the client-lawyer relationship. (In re Jordan (1974) 12 Cal.3d 575, 580.) Attorney-client privilege is necessary to “safeguard the confidential relationship between clients and their attorneys so as to promote full and open discussion of the facts and tactics surrounding individual legal matters.” (Mitchell v. Super. Ct. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 599.)
The duty of an attorney is “[t]o maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068(e)(1).) The attorney-client privilege is a statutorily created evidentiary rule that protects from disclosure a “confidential communication” between a lawyer and his or her client. (Evid. Code, § 954; Solin v. O’Melveny & Myers (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 451, 456-57.)
“Although exercise of the privilege may occasionally result in the suppression of relevant evidence, the Legislature of this state has determined that these concerns are outweighed by the importance of preserving confidentiality in the attorney-client relationship.” (Costco v. Super. Ct. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 732.)
The party claiming the privilege has “the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply.” (Id. at p. 733.)
For purposes of the attorney-client privilege, “confidential communication” is defined as “information transmitted between a client and his or her lawyer in the course of that relationship and in confidence.” (Evid. Code, § 952; In re Jordan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 930, 939-40.) The principle of client-lawyer confidentiality applies to information relating to the representation, whatever its source, and encompasses matters communicated in confidence by the client, and therefore protected by the attorney-client privilege, matters protected by the work product doctrine, and matters protected under the ethical standards of confidentiality, all as established in law, rule and policy. (In the Matter of Johnson (Rev. Dept. 2000) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 179, 189.) In other words, information protected by the ethical duty of confidentiality is broader than what is protected as attorney-client privilege under the Evidence Code. (Id. at p. 189.)
“[A]n attorney is forbidden to do either of two things after severing his relationship with a former client. He may not do anything which will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which he formerly represented him nor may he at any time use against his former client knowledge or information acquired by virtue of the previous relationship.” (Wutchumna, supra, 216 Cal. at pp. 573-74; Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 822-23.)
When an attorney’s representation of a current client may conflict with the interests of a former client, the duty to maintain client confidences is jeopardized. (M’Guinness v. Johnson (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 602, 613.) Where an attorney’s representation of a former client is substantially related to the attorney’s representation of a current client, a presumption arises that the attorney has obtained confidential information from the former client. (Fiduciary Trust Internat. of California v. Super. Ct. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 465, 480.)
“To rebut the presumption, the challenged attorney has the burden of showing that the practical effect of formal screening has been achieved. The showing must satisfy the trial court that the employee has not had and will not have any involvement with the litigation, or any communication with attorneys or coemployees concerning the litigation, that would support a reasonable inference that the information has been used or disclosed. If the challenged attorney fails to make this showing, then the court may disqualify the attorney and law firm.” (In re Complex Asbestos Litigation (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 572, 596.)
“A former client may seek to disqualify a former attorney from representing an adverse party by showing the former attorney actually possesses confidential information adverse to the former client.” (Costello v. Buckley (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 748, 754.) “There is no strict requirement of precise relationship between the factual and legal issues of the two cases.” (Id.)
“[T]he purpose of a disqualification must be prophylactic; an attorney may not be disqualified purely as a punitive or disciplinary measure.” (Neal v. Health Net, Inc. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 831, 844.)
“A trial court’s authority to disqualify an attorney derives from the power inherent in every court to control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining thereto.” (In re Charlisse C. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 145, 159.)
Tang states that on information and belief, he incurred $768 in special damages because that was the amount Kaiser Permanente paid for his treatment. Counsel’s declaration authenticates a schedule from The Rawlings Company which breaks down the cost of Tang’s medical care. This evidence is sufficient to prove-up Tang’s special damages. The evidence is not, however, sufficient to support an award of $500,000 for pain and suffering.
Mar 26, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
N/A Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) See above_____ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.) Yes Proposed form of judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(6).) N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I.
Jan 28, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
File original signature on verification of Confidential Supplemental Information Form GC-312 or verified declaration to attach a corrected face page in compliance with LR 2.80 et seq. and CRC § 2.300 et seq. regarding facsimile filing. Notes: 1. No temporary orders are currently in place. 2. It appears Atty. Randolph Stein is appointed as counsel for proposed conservatee; however, no order is on file.
Jan 27, 2021
George
Contra Costa County, CA
File a verified declaration to address Item # 1.e. on Child Information Attachment Form GC-210 (CA) 3. File Confidential Guardian Screening Form GC-212 4. Submit Order Appointing Guardian of Minor Form GC-240 (revised 7-1-16) The Court is waiting for these items: Further report of Atty. Oliver Greenwood Notes: 1. Court will set a review hearing to deposit of funds into blocked account established for each minor. 2. Letters of Guardianship of Person issued to petitioner and Ryan Leuschen 10-2-19. 3.
Jan 25, 2021
Fenstermacher
Contra Costa County, CA
For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.
Jan 22, 2021
Real Property
Quiet Title
Los Angeles County, CA
For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.
Jan 22, 2021
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
Sanctions are sought against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ attorney of record. However, Defendants do not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against Plaintiffs directly; rather, the subpoenas were served by Plaintiffs’ attorney of record. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiffs’ attorney of record only. Plaintiffs’ attorney of record is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendants, by and through their attorney of record, in the total amount of $1,290, within twenty days.
Jan 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480(a).)
Jan 22, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Stepanyan (counsel for Contractor Defendants) states that on April 16, 2020, Menco’s counsel requested information about where payment was to be issued, and Mr. Stepanyan provided the mailing address and W9 of a third-party adjuster for their insurer. (Id., ¶4, Ex. B.) He states, however, that Menco has refused to comply with the terms of the settlement by failing to pay the $2,500 amount within 30 days of execution of the agreement (i.e., May 20, 2020). (Id., ¶5.)
Jan 22, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff contends it does not list any specific tests that will be performed or other information. Finally, Plaintiff contends Defendants unreasonably delayed in seeking this IME, as Defendants have always known the severity of Plaintiff’s injuries. In reply, Defendants argue that Plaintiff concedes she is claiming neurological injuries and ignores these injuries were not previously evaluated. Moreover, Defendants argue the moving papers sufficiently set forth the manner of the proposed examination.
Jan 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
For general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rules and procedures, please visit: http://www.judgerogerlund.com.
Jan 21, 2021
Probate
Trust
Ventura County, CA
The information contained in financial statements is such that would be ordinarily disclosed in a court accounting or an inventory and appraisal. Therefore they are not considered "Confidential" absent an affidavit describing the confidential character of the document. Conservator may redact partial account numbers when filing financial statements with the Court. The Court shall file the statements in the regular court file not in the "confidential" court file.
Jan 21, 2021
Probate
Trust
Ventura County, CA
Lack of personal knowledge regarding confidential information at mediation. 6. Overruled. 7. Sustained in part. Sustained as to agreement presented to other employees. Irrelevant. 8. Sustained in part. Hearsay as to # of hours spent by other employees. Lack of personal knowledge of the declarant as to other attorney hours. 9. Sustained. Legal conclusion and speculation. 10. Sustained. Irrelevant.
Jan 21, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
Contrary to Opposing Defendants’ arguments, the motion and accompanying declaration sufficiently identify the changes being made to the FAC, as Plaintiff provides the requisite information by means of the redlined version of the FAC. The Court thus turns to the remaining arguments.
Jan 21, 2021
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff states the information contained in the declaration was articulated by Plaintiff to Mr. Castro in Spanish prior to Castro’s writing the declaration in English. Plaintiff affirms the truth and accuracy of the information stated therein. Defendant does not object to counsel’s translation, and thus the court considers the declaration. Plaintiff met Mr. Castro at the scene of the incident on December 29, 2020 at approximately 11:30 a.m.
Jan 21, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The portions of the documents that Plaintiff wishes to be sealed are those that identify his true name and his parents, information which could be used to identify him despite his pseudonymous prosecution. (Motion at p. 5.) The moving papers that are currently on file are already redacted to remove this information from public view.
Jan 21, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Although Capo is the prevailing party, the late request for attorney fees is denied as the request was first made in Capo’s reply brief, which is improper as they were not properly noticed and Plaintiff was not given the opportunity to respond to the new issue. CRC Rule 3.1110(a) and CCP § 2023.040. The Capo Motion is granted, with the exception of the attorney fee request. Depala is to produce documents responsive to the subpoena but limited to the 10-years preceding the date of production.
Jan 21, 2021
Orange County, CA
The statutory sections provide in relevant part: (a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to … record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a … telephone, or other device, … shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county
Jan 21, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s motion did not request sanctions nor did its attorney’s declaration provide the court with any information from which it could determine an amount of reasonable attorney’s fees as an appropriate sanction. Since sanctions regarding this motion are mandatory (see C.C.P. §2033.280 (c)), a monetary sanction in the amount of the $90.00 filing fee for the motion is imposed on Defendant, payable within thirty (30) days of the entry of this order.
Jan 21, 2021
Solano County, CA
The delay in responding also waives the option to produce writings in under Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.230 in lieu of the information contained within them (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.290(a).) There are some case law exceptions to waiver. One case holds that a party may obtain a protective order limiting discovery of objectionable information even after they have waived their right to object. (Stadish v. Superior Court (Southern Calif. Gas Co.) (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130,1144).
Jan 21, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
Legal Standard “If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480(a)).)
Jan 21, 2021
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
The Strouds’ attorney (Chase Martin) states that once he was retained, he met and conferred with Attorney Connell regarding the documents sought. Attorney Martin understood from those discussion that Kleck was not interested in obtaining documents which had already been produced but was instead seeking communications between Plaintiffs and the Strouds with respect to the real property at issue in the current litigation. (Martin Decl., ¶ 4.)
Jan 21, 2021
San Luis Obispo County, CA
For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.
Jan 21, 2021
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
Bank also seeks estimated attorney fees of $10,000 but fails to support this amount with an attorney declaration or statutory basis and they are denied. 3. Probability of Success Bank alleges that it has established that Fuscellaro and Larsson have each failed to meet their obligations under the Guaranties. App. at 7-8. The Note and the Loan Agreement evidence the obligations between Bank and the Corporation, and the Guaranties establish that Guarantors guaranteed Corporation’s debts.
Jan 21, 2021
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
. § 2033.240(c) requires that “the attorney for the responding party shall sign any response that contains an objection,” Plaintiff provides no grounds that Defendant’s responses, which are verified, waive all objections because they did not contain a signature of counsel.
Jan 21, 2021
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.