What is a Disclosure of Confidences at Motions for Withdrawal?

Useful Rulings on Disclosure of Confidences at Motions for Withdrawal

Recent Rulings on Disclosure of Confidences at Motions for Withdrawal

DR ELLIE KAUCHER VS PHILLIPS GRADUATE UNIVERSITY ET AL

MOTION FILED BY TSARUKYAN AND ZENJIRYAN In connection with the motion to be relieved as counsel, Zenjiryan declares that: (1) Plaintiff did not voluntarily consent to counsel’s request to be relieved; (2) the specific facts which give rise to this motion are required to be kept confidential pursuant to California Business and Professions Code, Section 6068(e), California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-100(A), and by the attorney-client privilege; (3) in the event the Court desires further information

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TADE WILLIAMS VS DAVID AMAYA, ET AL.

Counsel states that the specific facts which gave rise to this motion are required to be kept confidential under Business and Professions Code § 6068(e), CRPC Rule 3-100(A), and the attorney-client privilege. In compliance with CRC Rule 3.1362, Counsel properly filed forms MC-051 - Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, MC-052 – Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, and MC-053 – Proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

HERIBERTA FLORES ET AL VS 341 S ALVARADO LLC ET AL

The specific facts which give rise to this motion are confidential and required to be kept confidential pursuant to Business and Professions Code $6068(e), rule 3-100(A), California Rules of Professional Conduct, and by the attorney-client privilege (Evid, C., §§ 950 et seq.).

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2019

MICHAEL SAHAGUN VS HUNTINGTON PARK-MAYWOOD POST NO.2830

Here, Counsel’s declaration indicates that “[t]he specific facts which give rise to this motion are confidential and required to be kept confidential pursuant to Business and Professions Code §6068(e), Rule 3-100(A), California Rules of Professional Conduct, and by the attorney-client privilege (Evid. C., §§950 et seq.)”

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2019

JESSICA RETANA VS KOSTIV & ASSOCIATES PC ET AL

The specific facts which give rise to this motin arfe confidential pursuant to Business 8 Professions Code section 6068(e) and Rule 3-100(A) ofthe California Rules of Professional Conduct, and by the attorney-client privilege (Evidence Code, section 950 et seq.)

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JESSICA RETANA VS KOSTIV & ASSOCIATES PC ET AL

The specific facts which give rise to this motin arfe confidential pursuant to Business 8 Professions Code section 6068(e) and Rule 3-100(A) ofthe California Rules of Professional Conduct, and by the attorney-client privilege (Evidence Code, section 950 et seq.)

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JOHN SABA VS MCZ INVESTMENT GROUP

Larkin represents that the motion is being brought “for the reasons stated within California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C),” but that “[t]he specific facts which give rise to this motion are confidential and required to be kept confidential pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 6068€, Rule 3-100(A), California Rules of Professional Conduct, and by the Attorney Cleint [sic] Privlege [sic] (Evid. C., Section 950 et seq.).”

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2018

JUN ZHOU VS TONY YU

Tsay represents that “[t]he specific facts which give rise to the motions are confidential and required to be kept confidential pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 6068(e), rule 3-100(A), California Rules of Professional Conduct, and by the attorney-client privilege (Evid. C., §§ 950 et seq.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

UHRLAMPS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION VS GLORIA CHEN

The specific facts which give rise to this motion are confidential and required to be kept confidential pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 6068€, rule 3-100(A), California Rules of Professional Conduct, and by the attorney-client privilege (Evid. C., §§ 950 et seq.).

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2018

STAUB, DAVID J VS PROSERIES LLC

Rule of Professional Conduct, rule 3-100(A); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6068(e), 6149; Evid. Code § 952), there is an exception to the attorney-client privilege “as to a communication relevant to an issue of breach, by the lawyer or by the client, of a duty arising out of the lawyer-client relationship.” (Evid. Code § 958; see Solin v. O’Melveny & Myers, LLP (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 451, 463.) Here, the instant action involves an alleged breach by the client with respect to the attorney-client relationship.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2016

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.