Ethics update
By JONATHAN BISHOP and MARK TAXY
This feature highlights recent authorities in the area of professional responsibility,
including new cases, advisory ethics opinions, pending legislation and proposed
rule amendments.
Cases:
Frazier v. Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 23
The boundaries of the substantial relationship test for vicarious disqualification
of counsel was examined in Frazier v. Superior Court. The trial court ordered
disqualification of petitioner's Cumis counsel. At the time the insurer's counsel
had covered a few depositions for Cumis counsel, a conflict of interest existed
but was not known. On the basis that the court overextended the vicarious disqualification
rules, the petitioner requested a writ of mandate instructing the superior court
to vacate its disqualification order.
The court of appeal granted the petition, vacating the disqualification order
and holding that disqualification of Cumis counsel would require the double
imputation of knowledge of confidential information first from one law
firm attorney representing the insurer to another attorney in that firm, and
then from the latter attorney to a completely different law firm.
California case law on vicarious disqualification did not support the double
imputation in this situation.
American Airlines Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullen et al. (Mar. 8, 2002) 96 Cal.App.4th
1017
An airline company brought suit against its former attorney and his law firm
for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. After the law firm
had terminated the representation and without the consent of the airline, the
attorney acted as a Federal Rule 30(b)(6) spokesperson for an aircraft broker
in a case against an aircraft manufacturer.
The trial court found that the attorney and his law firm breached their fiduciary
duties to their former client.
The court of appeal affirmed, holding that the proscription against representation
adverse to a former client may exist in situations where an attorney acts in
a role other than as an attorney.
In addition, the court determined that the proscription applied even if the
former client was not a party to the litigation.
|