In general, there are two types of situations in which conflicts requiring the disqualification of counsel may arise: successive representation and concurrent representation. (Cal West Nurseries, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1174.)
Concurrent representation involves directly adverse conflicts between clients. The existence of this conflict is per se disqualification absent the informed written consent of both clients. (California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7(a), (d); see also, Flatt v. Superior Court (Daniel) (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 284.)
Informed written consent generally requires both written disclosures by the lawyer to the clients and written consents provided by the clients. (California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 1.0.1.(e), (e-1), 1.7(a), (b).) It is possible for a client’s actions to invoke implied consent and waiver of potential conflicts. (Marriage of Friedman (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 65, 71.)
Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 (formerly 3-310(c)) provides that a lawyer will not, without informed written consent from each client, represent a client with an interest adverse to another client. In considering conflicts of interest in a concurrent representation, the court must focus on the attorney’s duty of loyalty. (Sharp v. Next Entertainment, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 410, 428.) “A per se or automatic disqualification rule applies when counsel's representation of one client is adverse to the interests of another current client.” (Responsible Citizens v. Superior Court (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1717, 1724.)
The scope of an attorney's duty of confidentiality to a former client is set out in the Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9 (formerly 3–310(E)). It provides in relevant part that: (b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client (1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and (2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e) and rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter; unless the former client gives informed written consent. “[A] ‘substantial relationship’ exists whenever the ‘subjects’ of the prior and the current representations are linked in some rational manner.” (Jessen v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 698, 711.)
Three factors are used in determining whether there is a substantial relationship: factual similarity; legal similarity; and the nature and extent of the attorney’s involvement with the cases. (Rosenfeld Construction Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 566, 576-577.) Two matters are “the same or substantially related” for the purposes of Rule 1.9, if they involve a substantial risk of a violation of an attorney’s duty not to do anything that will injuriously affect the former client in any matter in which the lawyer represented the former client, and use against the former client knowledge or information acquired by virtue of the previous relationship. (Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 1.9, comments 1 [citing Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811] & 3.) This occurs, for example, if the matters involve the same transaction or legal dispute; or if the lawyer normally would have obtained confidential information, and the lawyer would be expected to use or disclose that information in the subsequent representation because it is material to the subsequent representation. (Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 1.9, comment 3.)
The power of the court to order the disqualification of counsel is statutory. “Every court shall have the power to do all of the following: [¶] … [¶] (5) [t]o control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining thereto.” (Code of Civil Procedure section 128(a)(5).) “Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(5) gives courts the power to order a lawyer’s disqualification.” (DCH Health Services Corp. v. Waite (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 829, 831-832.) A disqualification motion addresses a conflict between a party’s right to choose its counsel and the overall needs of the judicial system to maintain ethical standards of professional responsibility for attorneys. (Comden v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 906, 915; SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1145.) “The paramount concern must be to preserve public trust in the scrupulous administration of justice and integrity of the bar. The important right to counsel of one’s choice must yield to ethical considerations that affect the fundamental principles of our judicial process.” (SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th at 1145.)
“One of the principal obligations of every attorney is to protect each of his or her clients in every possible way. It is a clear violation of that duty for an attorney to assume a position adverse or antagonistic to the client without the latter’s free and intelligent consent, given with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances.” Gilbert v. Nat’l Corp. for Hous. P’ships (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1240, 1253. “[A] conflict of interest exists whenever a lawyer’s representation of one of two clients is rendered less effective because of his representation of the other.” Id.
“In exercising its discretion with respect to granting or denying a disqualification motion, a trial court may properly consider the possibility that the party brought the motion as a tactical device to delay litigation. Where the party opposing the motion can demonstrate prima facie evidence of unreasonable delay in bringing the motion causing prejudice to the present client, disqualification should not be ordered. The burden then shifts back to the party seeking disqualification to justify the delay. Delay will not necessarily result in the denial of a disqualification motion; the delay and the ensuing practice must be extreme.” (Western Continental Operating Co. v. Natural Gas Corp. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 752, 763-764.)
On appeal, a trial court's decision concerning a disqualification motion will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. (People ex rel Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1135, 1143.) "The trial court's exercise of this discretion is limited by the applicable legal principles and is subject to reversal when there is no reasonable basis for the action. [Citations.]" (In re Complex Asbestos Litigation (1991) 232 Cal. App. 3d 572, 585.) Only a Party with an expectation of confidentiality can disqualify a lawyer. (Id.)
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.
Jan 06, 2021
Fenstermacher
Contra Costa County, CA
“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).
Jan 06, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.
Jan 06, 2021
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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...
Jan 05, 2021
Fenstermacher
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
Jan 05, 2021
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Dec 28, 2020
Solano County, CA
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.
Dec 28, 2020
Solano County, CA
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
Dec 22, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Dec 18, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
(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.
Dec 18, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
Dec 18, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Dec 18, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
Dec 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Dec 17, 2020
Other
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
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.
Dec 17, 2020
Other
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
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.
Dec 17, 2020
Other
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
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.
Dec 17, 2020
Other
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
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.)
Dec 17, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Dec 17, 2020
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
’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.
Dec 15, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Dec 14, 2020
San Joaquin County, CA
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.
Dec 14, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
(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.
Dec 11, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Dec 11, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Dec 10, 2020
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
