When can a lawyer be disqualified?

Useful Resources for Lawyer’s Disqualification

Rulings on Lawyer’s Disqualification

1-25 of 2169 results

SHU WU SUE CHUEH ET AL VS CAESAR GLOBAL ALLIANCE INC ET AL

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Plaintiffs Shu Wu Sue Chueh and Gloria Hsu move to disqualify counsel for Defendants, contending that defense counsel concurrently represents Gloria Hsu and received confidential information of Gloria Hsu. Plaintiff Hsu is a shareholder of AMF World Enterprise, Inc. (“AMF”). Her three children are officers of the corporation. Hsu invested in the corporation and in return is a 10% shareholder. (Motion at p. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ERICKSON V. AGUILAR

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to submit sufficient evidence to show that Defendants’ counsel willfully produced a falsified email. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to disqualify Defendants’ counsel on this ground is denied. Second, Plaintiffs’ contend that Defendants’ counsel should be disqualified for attempting to intimidate Plaintiffs by filing an illegal writ of attachment.

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2019

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

.: 19STCV32254 Hearing Date: September 21, 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

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROLLINS PROPERTIES VS. ACG INDUSTRIES, INC.

Stephen Rollins, the general partner of Plaintiff, declares that (1) he has reviewed this motion to disqualify counsel, (2) discussed the merits of the motion with Plaintiff’s counsel, (3) was given the right to seek independent counsel, (4) understands that Defendant’s counsel intends to call Plaintiff’s counsel as a witness at trial in this matter, yet (5) nevertheless chooses to be represented by Plaintiff’s counsel. (See Rollins Decl., para. 3.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2017

  • Judge

    Brian S. Currey or John A. Slawson

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WHITNEY WOODFORD ET AL VS GEORGE WOODFORD

Counsel takes a per se disqualification approach that is inconsistent with the law regarding an attorney as a potential witness. It may be that, after full disclosure, plaintiffs do not want counsel to continue to represent them. But the court has no evidence indicating that is the case. The court will deny the motion on the present record. Of course, if plaintiffs wish to retain alternate counsel, they may substitute that counsel into the case.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2013

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

JUNAID VS. RADY CHILDRENS HOSPITAL SAN DIEGO [IMAGED]

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL by defendants Rady Children's Hospital – San Diego and Jennifer Cortez is GRANTED as to attorney Schapiro and DENIED as to attorney Zampi. Objections are overruled. The issue of disqualification ultimately involves a conflict between the clients' right to counsel of their choice and the need to maintain ethical standards of professional responsibility.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CLEVE PELL VS THE MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify counsel and filed an ex parte application to advance the hearing date and shorten time for the motion to disqualify counsel. On March 26, 2019, the Court scheduled the Hearing on the Motion to Disqualify Counsel for April 3, 2019. (Minute Order 03/26/2019.) ANALYSIS: Plaintiff brings this instant motion to disqualify Defendants’ counsel on the ground that Defendants’ counsel allegedly signed the declaration of a third party witness, Dr.

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2019

CLEVE PELL VS THE MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify counsel and filed an ex parte application to advance the hearing date and shorten time for the motion to disqualify counsel. On March 26, 2019, the Court scheduled the Hearing on the Motion to Disqualify Counsel for April 3, 2019. (Minute Order 03/26/2019.) ANALYSIS: Plaintiff brings this instant motion to disqualify Defendants’ counsel on the ground that Defendants’ counsel allegedly signed the declaration of a third party witness, Dr.

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2019

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

MIGUEL A. GARCIA VS SRIYANTHA XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX

Motion in Limine: Plaintiff’s Request to Disqualify Both Defense Counsel and to Exclude Evidence and Testimony Regarding the Document The court considered the moving and opposition papers. RULING The motion is DENIED as to disqualification. BACKGROUND On May 29, 2018, plaintiff filed the herein motion in limine re plaintiff’s request to disqualify defense counsel and to exclude evidence and testimony regarding a confidential and privileged document, which was inadvertently sent to defense counsel.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RENE SERNAS VS WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION

“In exercising its discretion to disqualify counsel under the advocate-witness rule, a court must consider: (1) whether counsel's testimony is, in fact, genuinely needed; (2) the possibility [opposing] counsel is using the motion to disqualify for purely tactical reasons; and (3) the combined effects of the strong interest parties have in representation by counsel of their choice, and in avoiding the duplicate expense and time-consuming effort involved in replacing counsel already familiar with the case.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

DOMINIQUE LACERTE AND THOMAS BRENNAN

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Disqualification of Counsel/Recusal of Mediator This matter was last on my calendar on 8/11/09. I reviewed a great amount of material and reached some conclusions. I wrote an extensive memorandum explaining my conclusions. Among other things considered at that time was mother’s request to disqualify the mediator.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2009

PHYLLIS LUNINE VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

If Stea did not share confidential information with Plaintiff’s Counsel, then there is no basis for disqualification, other than to punish Stea for switching sides. “[T]he purpose of a disqualification must be prophylactic; an attorney may not be disqualified purely as a punitive or disciplinary measure.” (Neal v. Health Net, Inc. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 831, 844.) Conclusion and Order Defendant’s motion to disqualify counsel is denied. The Court lifts the stay that it imposed on February 3, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION V. MIJARES

Does the fact that Riel was District Counsel for AUHSD when AUHSD filed suit against OCDE and Board result in the disqualification of all other attorneys in the OCDE Legal Department from providing advice to Board in all other matters and circumstances? 7. Does the Board have the authority to unilaterally hire its own Outside General Counsel pursuant to a written contract to represent solely the Board in all matters? 8.

  • Hearing

    Dec 30, 2019

SAN DIEGANS FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT VS FONSECA

Finally, Defendant has not demonstrated that the information is crucial to this case. (2) Defendant Julio Fonseca's Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel Cory Briggs is DENIED. Defendant, who is not a former or current client of Plaintiff's counsel, may bring a motion to disqualify where there is an ethical breach which is "manifest and glaring" that so "infects the litigation in which disqualification is sought that it impacts the [Defendant's] interest in a just and lawful determination of" the claims.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SAN DIEGANS FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT VS FONSECA

Finally, Defendant has not demonstrated that the information is crucial to this case. (2) Defendant Julio Fonseca's Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel Cory Briggs is DENIED. Defendant, who is not a former or current client of Plaintiff's counsel, may bring a motion to disqualify where there is an ethical breach which is "manifest and glaring" that so "infects the litigation in which disqualification is sought that it impacts the [Defendant's] interest in a just and lawful determination of" the claims.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

M F ET AL VS COUNTY ET AL

Cordero to (1) disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel; (2) for evidentiary sanctions; and (3) for an award of attorney’s fees against plaintiffs counsel (seeks $2,580). Ruling: Denied.

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2010

MELTON VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

As long as the plaintiffs' counsel does not utilize the Hugret White Paper, disqualifying counsel would be punitive rather than prophylactic. Thus, the Court declines to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel. The Court must impose monetary sanctions against a party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion for protective order unless the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020, subd. (b).

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOSEPH P MANZELLA ET AL VS MARIE M CAMPBELL ET AL

On 6/9/16, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to disqualify defense counsel from representing Manzella Properties LLC, but denied the motion to disqualify defense counsel from representing the individual defendants. ANALYSIS: The moving parties seek an order compelling the depositions of Joseph Manzella and persons most knowledgeable at MP LLC, SVI, and WD LLC, and for production of documents at the depositions.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2017

CAROL JEAN THOMPSON, VS DELMER JAMES MCENTYRE, 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

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SLPR LLC VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify Port's Counsel Daley & Heft LLP is DENIED. Plaintiffs seek to disqualify Defendant San Diego Unified Port District's ("Port") counsel based on its hiring of a former paralegal for one of Plaintiffs' counsel's law firm, Kristine Merel. Absent written consent, the proper rule and its application for disqualification based on nonlawyer employee conflicts of interest should be as follows.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • 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

JOHNEEN JONES ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE COUNSEL DUE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST Plaintiffs JOHNEEN JONES, KRISTINE KENNEY, KRISTINE KLOTZ, DEBRA KANE, and ROBERT PLOURDE’S motion to disqualify defense counsel is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2016

BARBARA PROPERTIES LLC VS BURTON CHORTKOFF ET AL

Tentative Ruling: The court denies defendant Burton Chortkoff’s motion to disqualify State Farm panel counsel as associate counsel.

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2013

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

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.