WILLIAMS, vs URBAN COMPASSION PROJECT

26CV190897: WILLIAMS, vs URBAN COMPASSION PROJECT, 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Disqualify Counsel filed by Vincent-Ray Williams,, III (Plaintiff) CRS# 491532866782 in Department 22

Tentative Ruling - 08/19/2026 Han N. Tran

The Motion to Disqualify Counsel filed by Vincent-Ray Williams,, III on 06/30/2026 is Denied.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Vincent-Ray Williams, III (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on May 28, 2026 and filed the now-operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on June 25, 2026. The FAC brings claims against Defendant Urban Compassion Project (“Defendant”) arising out of Plaintiff’s employment as Defendant’s Executive Director from 2021 through 2026.

Plaintiff seeks to disqualify the law firm representing Defendant, Sideman & Bancroft LLP, on the grounds that an attorney who works for the firm, Paige Voorhees, served in governance roles for Defendant and was involved or participated in events giving rise to the claims asserted in this action. Plaintiff contends that this implicates California Rules of Conduct 1.7(b) and 1.10.

Plaintiff, while serving as Executive Director for Defendant, had received an email from Ms. Vorhees on January 17, 2022 in which she expressed interest in helping Defendant with legal issues that might arise. (Williams Decl., ¶3, Exh. A.) Ms. Voorhees was subsequently elected to Defendant’s Board of Directors on February 2, 2022. (Adranly Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A). Plaintiff contends that issues relating to his compensation package were discussed at the same meeting in which Ms. Voorhees’s election to the Board was ratified.

Ms. Voorhees moved from the Perkins Coie firm to Sideman at some point between her introduction to Plaintiff and the commencement of this action. On April 15, 2026, Ms. Voorhees sent Plaintiff an email informing him that he was being placed on administrative suspension due to “financial irregularities reatled to the Homeless Ambassador Program.” (Williams Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Plaintiff asserts that Ms. Voorhees was present at an April 22, 2026 meeting of Defendant’s Board of Directors at which time Plaintiff’s claim for unpaid compensation and back wages was to be discussed, and that she discussed the issues directly with Plaintiff at the meeting. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-7.) Ms. Voorhees remains on Defendant’s Board of Directors.

LEGAL STANDARD California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(b) states: “A lawyer shall not, without informed written consent from each affected client and compliance with paragraph (d), represent a client if there is a significant risk the lawyer's representation of the client will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to or relationships with another client, a former client or a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests.”

California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(a) states: “While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone 26CV190897: WILLIAMS, vs URBAN COMPASSION PROJECT, 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Disqualify Counsel filed by Vincent-Ray Williams,, III (Plaintiff) CRS# 491532866782 in Department 22 would be prohibited from doing so by rules 1.7 or 1.9, unless (1) the prohibition is based on a personal interest of the prohibited lawyer and does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm; or (2) the prohibition is based upon rule 1.9(a) or (b) and arises out of the prohibited lawyer's association with a prior firm, and (i) the prohibited lawyer did not substantially participate in the same or a substantially related matter; (ii) the prohibited lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and (iii) written notice is promptly given to any affected former client to enable the former client to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this rule, which shall include a description of the screening procedures employed; and an agreement by the firm to respond promptly to any written inquiries or objections by the former client about the screening procedures.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 128(a)(5) grants courts the power to “control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining thereto.”

DISCUSSION

The motion is denied.

Plaintiff requests that the court exercise its inherent authority under Code of Civil Procedures section 128(a)(5) to disqualify the Sideman firm from representing Defendant in this action.

Defendant persuasively notes the general rule of thumb that the party seeking disqualification must have or have had an attorney-client relationship with that attorney. (See Great Lakes Construction, Inc. v. Burman (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1356.) Great Lakes also stands for the proposition that Code of Civil Procedure section 128 does not authorize the court to overlook the standing issue in ruling on a disqualification motion. The court is inclined to deny the motion on these grounds.

Ms. Voorhees’s practice areas do not include litigation. She obviously does not represent Plaintiff in this action, nor does she represent Defendant. While her status as a member of Defendant’s Board of Directors appears to include legal advisory work of some form, there is no evidence that she has been retained as counsel for Defendant in any action, let alone this one. It is thus not clear that a conflict of interest sufficient to warrant disqualification exists in the first

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV190897: WILLIAMS, vs URBAN COMPASSION PROJECT, 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Disqualify Counsel filed by Vincent-Ray Williams,, III (Plaintiff) CRS# 491532866782 in Department 22 instance. Rule 1.7’s primary purpose is to protect clients from their own counsel’s potential conflicts of interest. Plaintiff’s motion essentially seeks to wield Rule 1.7 as a sword against the law firm representing Defendant. Plaintiff’s moving papers assert that Ms. Voorhees’s professional judgment working on behalf of Defendant would be limited by her personal interests and that her actions as a member of Defendant’s Board of Directors will be placed under scrutiny.

Plaintiff claims that the Sideman firm’s ability to represent the party adverse to him would be implicated, but does not identify in what way this is likely to occur. Defendant also notes in opposition that Defendant has consented to the Sideman firm’s continued representation of it with full knowledge of the issue raised in this motion. Thus, the court sees no clear conflict under Rule 1.7 that would be imputed to the Sideman firm under Rule 1.10.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify counsel is DENIED.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH eCOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK (dept22@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing.

This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. Notice via BOTH eCourt AND email is required. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no party contests the tentative ruling.