When can a lawyer be disqualified?

Useful Resources for Lawyer’s Disqualification

Recent Rulings on Lawyer’s Disqualification

26-50 of 2163 results

CONS. OF TOGTOKH OYUNTSEREN

Report of court-appointed counsel Atty. Michael Pierson (MNCD) B. Susan German to appear or Doctor’s declaration regarding inability to attend hearing or waiver by counsel Notes: 1. Prayer requests the Court order the proposed conservatee is not entitled to vote. The standard for determining entitlement to vote has changed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

WILSON VS OLSON

“Thus, the State Bar has concluded that a fully informed client’s right to chosen counsel outweighs potential conflict or threat to trial integrity posed by counsel’s appearance as witness.” Maxwell v. Superior Court (1982) 30 Cal.3d 606, 620 (italics in original, disapproved of on other grounds as stated in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421 [footnote 22], discussed below).

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

CAROL JEAN THOMPSON, VS DELMER JAMES MCENTYRE, ET AL.

DISCUSSION Plaintiff requests an order to disqualify the vote for appointment of counsel for McEntyre Family Properties, LLC. Plaintiff asserts that she, defendant Delmer James, Elaine Henry-Tavares, and Patricia McEntyre each individually hold 25% Membership Percentages in the LLC.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

RE: NOTICE OF MTN & MTN DISQUALIFY OPPOSING COUNSEL SET BY (2/13/19 RG, RG)

PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Drop—Dismissal entered 10-6-20 RAYMOND GONZALES SHEILA K ROBELLO ROBERTO R. GNZALES AKA ROBERT TIFFANY RENEE THOMAS RODOLFO GONZALES SHEILA K ROBELLO ROSALINDA LONGORIA ORTIZ IVETTE M SANTAELLA ROSALINDA LONGORIA ORTIZ RYAN J SZCZEPANIK SONG JONG PISIMA...

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

VICHIT TILAKAMONKUL VS VICHAI TILAKAMONKUL ET AL

Plaintiff Vichit Tilakamonkul moves to disqualify Attorney Andrew D. Weiss as defense counsel and counsel for T-Team. Defendants request sanctions under CCP § 128.5. TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Vichit Tilakamonkul’s motion to disqualify Attorney Andrew D. Weiss is DENIED. Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

IN RE THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM ARTHUR JOYCE, DECEASED

Because of regional stay at home orders and public health directives still in effect due to the COVID-19 pandemic, counsel, petitioner and any interested person may appear remotely via Court Call or Zoom. If the court had an e-mail address on file, Counsel for petitioner was sent an invitation to attend court remotely via Zoom. He or she may forward that to Petitioner. The Zoom meeting identification number and password also appear above, immediately before the court’s pre-grant orders begin.

  • Hearing

    Dec 28, 2020

IN RE THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM JOYCE, DECEASED

Because of regional stay at home orders and public health directives still in effect due to the COVID-19 pandemic, counsel, petitioner and any interested person may appear remotely via Court Call or Zoom. If the court had an e-mail address on file, Counsel for petitioner was sent an invitation to attend court remotely via Zoom. He or she may forward that to Petitioner. The Zoom meeting identification number and password also appear above, immediately before the court’s pre-grant orders begin.

  • Hearing

    Dec 28, 2020

ROGER MANLIN VS STEVE MILNER

For the reasons set forth above, the court denies Manlin’s motion to disqualify counsel, without prejudice. The court orders defendant and cross-complainant Steve Milner to give notice of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: December 22, 2020 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PEOPLE EX. REL. CALONNE V. PINI

Depending on the circumstances, a disqualification motion may involve such considerations as a client’s right to chosen counsel, an attorney’s interest in representing a client, the financial burden on a client to replace disqualified counsel, and the possibility that tactical abuse underlies the disqualification motion. [Citations.] Nevertheless, determining whether a conflict of interest requires disqualification involves more than just the interests of the parties.” (People ex rel.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

KEENE VS AAA

(6) An arbitrator making the award either: (A) failed to disclose within the time required for disclosure a ground for disqualification of which the arbitrator was then aware; or (B) was subject to disqualification upon grounds specified in Section 1281.91 but failed upon receipt of timely demand to disqualify himself or herself as required by that provision.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

MICHAEL KAISER, ET AL. VS ROBERT DAVIS, ET AL.

Motion To Disqualify Counsel Plaintiffs Ian and Michael Kaiser move to disqualify counsel James A. Bowles and the law firm of Hill, Farrer & Burrill LLP from representing all defendants in this action, on the ground that they have a nonwaivable conflict as to their concurrent representation of nominal defendant the Allen Reed Company and the individual director defendants in this action.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

NOWLAND VS. VALENTE HAIR & COMPANY, INC.

Nowland’s Motion to Disqualify Defendants’ Counsel of Record, the Case Management Conference set for today, and defendants’ Motion to Dismiss set for January 8, 2021, are ordered off calendar. A Bankruptcy Stay Review Hearing is set for March 2, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. in Department C16. A Status Report must be filed at least a week before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

CITY OF MONROVIA VS PAULINE WHITE, ET AL

Most recently, on December 4, 2020, this court denied a motion to disqualify counsel for the City, based on a detailed analysis of the issue, and ruled, in pertinent part: “The Court of Appeal has already determined that there is no impropriety in this matter in the representation of the City by private counsel on a non-contingency basis under People ex rel. Clancy v. Superior Court(1985) 39 Cal.3d 740, and that the trial court has properly awarded fees to the City based on a lodestar analysis.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

NUCCO LLC VS NON-NEWTONIAN MANAGEMENT LLC

Here, NNM argues Nucco's motion is in bad faith on a number of reasons, including: Mitchell's son and former wife being named to engage in "legal terrorism;" Nucco is attempting to create a situation to disqualify the JW Howard firm; Nucco's claims are at odds with its assertions in the petition; and, counsel cannot represent an action on behalf of NNM due to a serious conflict of interest. Opp. at pp.7, 13-14; Howard Decl. ¶¶ 10-12.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

NUCCO LLC VS NON-NEWTONIAN MANAGEMENT LLC

Here, NNM argues Nucco's motion is in bad faith on a number of reasons, including: Mitchell's son and former wife being named to engage in "legal terrorism;" Nucco is attempting to create a situation to disqualify the JW Howard firm; Nucco's claims are at odds with its assertions in the petition; and, counsel cannot represent an action on behalf of NNM due to a serious conflict of interest. Opp. at pp.7, 13-14; Howard Decl. ¶¶ 10-12.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

NUCCO LLC VS NON-NEWTONIAN MANAGEMENT LLC

Here, NNM argues Nucco's motion is in bad faith on a number of reasons, including: Mitchell's son and former wife being named to engage in "legal terrorism;" Nucco is attempting to create a situation to disqualify the JW Howard firm; Nucco's claims are at odds with its assertions in the petition; and, counsel cannot represent an action on behalf of NNM due to a serious conflict of interest. Opp. at pp.7, 13-14; Howard Decl. ¶¶ 10-12.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

NUCCO LLC VS NON-NEWTONIAN MANAGEMENT LLC

Here, NNM argues Nucco's motion is in bad faith on a number of reasons, including: Mitchell's son and former wife being named to engage in "legal terrorism;" Nucco is attempting to create a situation to disqualify the JW Howard firm; Nucco's claims are at odds with its assertions in the petition; and, counsel cannot represent an action on behalf of NNM due to a serious conflict of interest. Opp. at pp.7, 13-14; Howard Decl. ¶¶ 10-12.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HYUN JOU PARK, ET AL. VS HESOOK, KIM, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND EACH AS TRUSTEE OF THE HESOOK KIM TRUST EXECUTED 8/24/04, ET AL.

Disqualification is imputed to the attorney designated “of counsel” because of the public designation of that relationship, and of counsel attorneys are to be regarded the same as partners, associates and members of law firms for conflict of interest issues. (Id. at 1155-56.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SPARBER ANNEN MORRIS & GABRIEL APLC VS HILLSBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC

This is so because 'motions to disqualify counsel often pose the very threat to the integrity of the judicial process that they purport to prevent.' [Citation.] They can be used to harass opposing counsel, to delay the litigation, to intimidate an adversary into accepting settlement on otherwise unacceptable terms, or for other strategic purposes. [Citation.] (Emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KOREAN WESTERN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF LOS ANGELES VS JONG SUK CHOI, ET AL.

’s counsel set for hearing on December 10, 2010, and a Statement of Information for WKPC filed with the Secretary of State on May 27, 2020, and (4) Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ brief re: Plaintiff’s false representations.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BLUE MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. ET AL. VS BROCK ROSE ET AL.

The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

BERNARDO ORDAZ VS 665 INC., ET AL.

Instead of composing a 14-page Complaint with nine causes of action, perhaps in the future counsel should consider the use of a form complaint approved by the judicial counsel and narrow it down a bit.[1] At the very least, it is respectfully suggested that Plaintiff’s counsel modify its standard cut-and-paste employment complaints accordingly.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

POINTE ASSESTS, LLC VS. BENSON INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL.

(6) An arbitrator making the award either: (A) failed to disclose within the time required for disclosure a ground for disqualification of which the arbitrator was then aware; or (B) was subject to disqualification upon grounds specified in Section 1281.91 but failed upon receipt of timely demand to disqualify himself or herself as required by that provision.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

ARTHUR AMBARACHYAN VS GEORGE PLAVJIAN, ET AL.

Whatever the disputed documents represent, they do not prove an attorney-client relationship of significance enough for a motion for disqualification. CONCLUSION AND ORDER The motion to disqualify counsel JT Legal Group APC is denied. Ms. Kakoian shall provide notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

A F VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

On March 18, 2020, LAUSD Counsel spoke with Plaintiff’s Counsel and agreed to continue Plaintiffs deposition to late April or early May of 2020. (Id. ¶ 4.) However, Plaintiff’s counsel advised LAUSD’s counsel that he intended to file a motion for a protective order. (Ibid.) The next week, LAUSD emailed Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter regarding the outstanding deposition requesting alternate dates for Plaintiff by the close of business on March 31, 2020. (Id. ¶ 6, Ex. B.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 87     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.