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.)
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.
Oct 21, 2020
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
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.
Oct 21, 2020
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
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.
Oct 20, 2020
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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).
Oct 20, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
H. Jay Ford
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.
Oct 16, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
Ruling on Motion For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to disqualify Offenbacher, but DENIES the motion to disqualify the SCR firm as counsel of record for defendants: (1) Rule 3-310 of the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer from representing a client whose interests are adverse to those of a former client.
Oct 16, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Ventura County, CA
Ruling on Motion For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to disqualify Offenbacher, but DENIES the motion to disqualify the SCR firm as counsel of record for defendants: (1) Rule 3-310 of the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer from representing a client whose interests are adverse to those of a former client.
Oct 16, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Ventura County, CA
David Sedaghat’s motion to disqualify counsel Stewart J. Levin is DENIED.
Oct 16, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
On December 9, 2029, a Remittitur was received by the Court from the Court of Appeal ordering that an appeal initiated by plaintiff’s notice of appeal of July 5, 2019 from an order striking plaintiff’s Fourth Statement of Disqualification was dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable order. The Remittitur states that respondents are to recover costs on appeal. The motions, including the instant motion, along with several other motions, were set for hearing.
Oct 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
App. 4th 477, the appellate court disqualified counsel from representing the LLC, but allowed counsel to continue to represent the other defendants. 192 Cal. App. 4th at 490-92. That remedy if applied here would merely disqualify Brower from representing WLOW. But a review of plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which asserts both direct and derivative claims, shows that plaintiff did not name WLOW as a defendant in any of its nine causes of action.
Oct 16, 2020
Orange County, CA
App. 4th 477, the appellate court disqualified counsel from representing the LLC, but allowed counsel to continue to represent the other defendants. 192 Cal. App. 4th at 490-92. That remedy if applied here would merely disqualify Brower from representing WLOW. But a review of plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which asserts both direct and derivative claims, shows that plaintiff did not name WLOW as a defendant in any of its nine causes of action.
Oct 16, 2020
Orange County, CA
.: 3 Discover Motion C/O: 8-5-21 POS: OK Trial Date: 8-23-21 SUBJECT: MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL MOVING PARTY: Defendant/X-Complainants Fusionzone Automotive, LLC, Brett Sutherlin and Karen Sutherlin RESP. PARTY: None as of 10-13-20 TENTATIVE RULING Defendants/X-Complainants Fusionzone Automotive LLC, Brett Sutherlin and Karen Sutherlin’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel is GRANTED. I.
Oct 15, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
H. Jay Ford
Los Angeles County, CA
A potential petitioner is “entitled to receive counsel and assistance from all rehabilitative agencies, including the adult probation officer of the county and all state parole officers.” (§ 4852.04.) In the proceedings before the trial court, the petitioner is entitled to the assistance of appointed counsel. (§ 4852.08.)
Oct 15, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
However, Defendants’ reliance upon CCP § 170.3(b)(4) is misplaced as Judge Meiers did not recognize her own disqualification. Rather, the disqualification resulted from Judge Meiers’ failure to respond to the statement of disqualification. (Hayward v.
Oct 15, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Los Angeles County, CA
Failure to move in a timely manner to disqualify counsel may waive the right to disqualify, particularly when the delay has been extreme or unreasonable and created unreasonable prejudice to the opponent. [Liberty Nat'l Enterprises, L.P. v. Chicago Title Ins.
Oct 15, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
Oct 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
There is nothing in section 3439.04 that excludes attorneys’ fees debt or otherwise would disqualify SMPLC as a creditor under the UFTA. Accordingly, this argument is without merit. The Demurrer is OVERRULED as to this argument.
Oct 13, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
. §664.6, the Court will provide all parties with an opportunity to seek a continuance: (1) to bring a disqualification motion before proceeding with the hearing and/or (2) to consider whether to bring such a motion for disqualification of the court.
Oct 09, 2020
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
—and this alone may disqualify him from relief in the causes of action he describes.8 However, that does not inform the decision made here by this Court. 7 The Silberg case references Prosser, Law of Torts 3rd ed. 1964. See Id. at 213-215 “The principal purpose of section [47(b)] is to afford litigants and witnesses the utmost freedom of access to the courts without fear of being harassed subsequently by derivative tort actions . . .
Oct 08, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
CT’s legal counsel contacted Kuta to discuss the structuring of a severance agreement. (Patel decl., exh. 1.) Included in this discussion was a possible consulting agreement. (Id.) When Kuta did not respond to CT’s counsel, CT’s counsel then sent an email discussing the Promissory Note and terminated the proposed consulting agreement. (Id.) Kuta has not responded to the email and has not made any payments on the loan. (UMFs 18-20.)
Oct 08, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
Further, any comments by this Court about the factual and legal issues in the case, and the court’s rulings and findings – tentative or otherwise -- are not as a matter of law legal grounds for disqualification for cause. The pleadings demonstrate on their face no legal grounds for disqualification. Insofar as they purport to be statements of disqualification for cause, they are stricken pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 170.4, subdivision (b).
Oct 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
the appearance by, the temporary judge first learned or arising after the temporary judge has made one or more rulings, but before the temporary judge has completed judicial action in the proceeding, the temporary judge, unless the disqualification or termination is waived, must disqualify himself or herself.
Oct 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant Clear Start Today’s Motion to Disqualify West Coast Employment Lawyers, APLC as Class Counsel for Other Aggrieved Employees (ROA 20) is DENIED. Defendant has failed to demonstrate any conflict between Plaintiff and any aggrieved employees. The emails between counsel, exchanged before a lawsuit was filed, show that the initial $200,000 demand was only for Plaintiff’s individual claims, which included a proposed claim for wrongful termination.
Oct 08, 2020
Orange County, CA
App. 4th 655, 663. “’The court must weigh the combined effect of a party’s right to counsel of choice, an attorney’s interest in representing a client, the financial burden on a client of replacing disqualified counsel and any tactical abuse underlying a disqualification proceeding against the fundamental principle that the fair resolution of disputes within our adversary system requires vigorous representation of parties by independent counsel unencumbered by conflicts of interest.’”
Oct 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Having been so advised, all parties (through Counsel) stated: (1) that they waive any right to bring a disqualification motion, and (2) that they wish to proceed with the hearing today. Procedural Background On March 20, 2020, Plaintiff DCR Mortgage 7 Sub 2, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against defendants North American Title Insurance Company and North American Title Company (collectively “Defendants”).
Oct 07, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
