When can a lawyer be disqualified?

Useful Resources for Lawyer’s Disqualification

Recent Rulings on Lawyer’s Disqualification

101-125 of 2164 results

PRO INSTALLATIONS INC VS BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LLC

be disqualified.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PRO INSTALLATIONS INC VS BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LLC

be disqualified.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1516 HOBART INVESTMENTS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Administrative Hearing Officer shall not be a City employee and is subject to disqualification for bias, prejudice, or conflict. Id. At the appeal hearing, the City bears the burden of proof to establish the existence of the administrative violation specified on the citation and the parties can submit documents and present and cross-examine witnesses. LAMC §11.2.09(e).

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JOSE MIRELES VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

Frazier is also inapposite as the Court of Appeal dealt with conflict of interests and disqualification of counsel. (See generally Frazier v. Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 23, 26.) Moreover, Defendant’s citation to Frazier omits the reference to former Rule 3-310 of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. (Id. at 29.) The imputation of knowledge is related to conflicts of interest. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

NAM WON KIM VS PACIFIC BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION ET AL

Thus, the default and default judgment did not result from a lack of actual notice, but rather from inexcusable neglect, which disqualifies YNOT from relief under section 473.5. To allow YNOT to escape the default and default judgment now, in October 23, 2020, without any credible evidentiary basis for doing so, is not only unauthorized by the statute YNOT relies upon, but it would unfairly prejudice plaintiff and significantly undermine the judicial process.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NUCCO LLC VS NON-NEWTONIAN MANAGEMENT LLC

Nucco's opposition does not address the merits of the motion, it simply argues that discovery matters will be addressed in a soon-to-be calendared motion for reconsideration and/or this motion should be stayed until after Nucco's motion for disqualification is heard. The request for a stay is denied as whether or not NNM's counsel is disqualified is irrelevant to whether Nucco should be sanctioned.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

THE SEMLER COMPANIES/MALIBU VS COLETTE PELISSIER

Therefore, the motion to disqualify counsel is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

PRO INSTALLATIONS INC VS BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LLC

be disqualified.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NUCCO LLC VS NON-NEWTONIAN MANAGEMENT LLC

Nucco's opposition does not address the merits of the motion, it simply argues that discovery matters will be addressed in a soon-to-be calendared motion for reconsideration and/or this motion should be stayed until after Nucco's motion for disqualification is heard. The request for a stay is denied as whether or not NNM's counsel is disqualified is irrelevant to whether Nucco should be sanctioned.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

IN RE: MARCUS AND MARCIA RUDNICK FAMILY TRUST

Prior to that, Marcia had filed a Motion for Disqualification of Petitioners’ counsel set to be heard on July 15, 2020. Before the Court held a hearing on any of these matters (all of which were continued due to court closures resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic), Petitioners dismissed the underlying petition for removal on July 2, 2020. III.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

IN RE: MARCUS AND MARCIA RUDNICK FAMILY TRUST

Prior to that, Marcia had filed a Motion for Disqualification of Petitioners’ counsel set to be heard on July 15, 2020. Before the Court held a hearing on any of these matters (all of which were continued due to court closures resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic), Petitioners dismissed the underlying petition for removal on July 2, 2020. III.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

WILLIAM SUGGS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM ELLIOT SUGGS VS BONNIE PATRICIA MORGAN , ET AL.

Case No.: 19STCV32254 Hearing Date: October 26, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION to disqualify counsel INTRODUCTION Plaintiff “William Suggs, Individually and as the Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of William Elliot Suggs,” filed this action against Defendants Bonnie Patricia Morgan and Gary Morgan (“Defendants”) following the death of Decedent William Elliot Suggs (“Decedent”) in a motor vehicle collision. Now, Plaintiff moves to disqualify Defendants’ counsel.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

YORK POINT VIEW PROPERTIES LLC VS CITY OF RANCO PALOS VERDES

York Point’s counsel is ordered to prepare a proposed judgment and writ of mandate, serve them on the City’s counsel for approval as to form, wait ten days after service for any objections, meet and confer if there are objections, and then submit the proposed judgment and writ along with a declaration stating the existence/non-existence of any unresolved objections. An OSC re: judgment is set for December 8, 2020 1:30 p.m.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

WILLIAM SUGGS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM ELLIOT SUGGS VS BONNIE PATRICIA MORGAN , ET AL.

Case No.: 19STCV32254 Hearing Date: October 26, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION to disqualify counsel NOTICE The Court will be dark for motions on October 26, 2020. Therefore, the hearing on this motion is continued to October 27, 2020, at 1:30 p.m.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NATIONWIDE INDEMNITY COMPANY VS THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

The hearings on the Motion to Disqualify Counsel, Demurrer and Case Management Conference are CONTINUED TO November 9, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. The Court needs additional time to consider the briefing filed for the motions before hearing oral argument. Counsel for Defendant St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DAPHYNE HOWELL, AN INDIVIDUAL, VS 1736 FAMILY CRISIS CENTER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

However, in addition to the requirements imposed by law, any arbitrator herein shall be a retired California Superior Court Judge and shall be subject to disqualification on the same grounds as would apply to a judge of such a court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DISABILITY SERVICES CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DAVID JAMES BUTTERFIELD

On January 7, 2020, the court disqualified the firm of Flyer & Flyer as counsel of record for Butterfield and Fundenberg. A Status Conference re: Appeal is set for April 2, 2021. Discussion Grant moves the court for an order reclassifying the instant case from unlimited to limited. The motion is summarily denied, on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. Judgment was filed on September 2, 2020. Grant filed this motion on September 21, 2020. On September 11, 2020, Grant filed a “Notice of Appeal.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LAW OFFICES OF JACOB EMRANI, APC VS GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL.

In ruling on a motion to disqualify, the court should weigh: (1) the party's right to counsel of choice; (2) the attorney's interest in representing a client; (3) the financial burden on a client of change of counsel; (4) any tactical abuse underlying a disqualification motion; and (5) the principal that the fair resolution of disputes requires vigorous representation of parties by independent counsel. (Mills Land & Water Co. v. Golden West Refining Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 116, 126.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ETTEFAGH VS ESKELAND & ETTEFAGH DENTAL CORPORATION

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

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LAW OFFICES OF JACOB EMRANI, APC VS GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL.

In ruling on a motion to disqualify, the court should weigh: (1) the party's right to counsel of choice; (2) the attorney's interest in representing a client; (3) the financial burden on a client of change of counsel; (4) any tactical abuse underlying a disqualification motion; and (5) the principal that the fair resolution of disputes requires vigorous representation of parties by independent counsel. (Mills Land & Water Co. v. Golden West Refining Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 116, 126.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

THE MOTIVA GROUP INC VS GLOBAL IMPACT GROUP INC

In addition, a suspended corporation is disqualified from participating in litigation. Palm Valley Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Design MTC (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 553, 559.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

THE MOTIVA GROUP INC VS GLOBAL IMPACT GROUP INC

In addition, a suspended corporation is disqualified from participating in litigation. Palm Valley Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Design MTC (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 553, 559.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CHARLENE TANG VS 829 FLOWER, LLC , ET AL.

IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT PHYSICAL DISTANCING AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR REMOTELY FOR NON-TRIAL AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS, INCLUDING THIS MOTION. The Court makes the following disclosure: Judge Elaine Lu recently purchased a vacant duplex.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

C. FREDERICK WEHBA VS GREGORY M. BORDO

The receiving attorney assumes the risk of disqualification when that attorney elects to use the documents before the parties or the trial court has resolved the dispute over their privileged nature and the documents ultimately are found to be privileged.” McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1083, 1092–93 (obligations created under State Fund apply regardless of how or from whom counsel inadvertently received privileged documents).

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

    Oct 16, 2020

  « 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.