Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel
25CV-02427 Isaac Garcia vs Jason Miller, et al.
Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel
The motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel is GRANTED.
The trial court is vested with the power “[t]o control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers.” That power includes the disqualifying of an attorney. (Code. Civ. Proc. § 128, subd. (a)(5); Henriksen v. Great American Savings & Loan (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 109, 113.)
The court finds Defendant has standing to bring the instant motion. “Protection of the attorney-client privilege is not the only ground for a motion to disqualify an attorney. An attorney may be disqualified for a variety of reasons, including the protection of confidential work product of opposing counsel.” (Meza v. H. Muehlstein & Co., Inc. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 969, 980.) Here, although inartfully stated, Defendant is looking to protect the confidential work product and/or other privileged information, known by or in possession, of his former counsel, who was opposing counsel.
The court also finds that although Plaintiff’s counsel has not represented Defendant, there is a substantial relationship between the parties. It is uncontroverted that Plaintiff’s counsel has appeared in this matter prior to being employed by Defendant’s former counsel; it is uncontroverted that Defendant’s former counsel has appeared in this matter prior to hiring Plaintiff’s counsel, and it is uncontroverted that Defendant’s former counsel employed Plaintiff’s counsel during this ongoing litigation. As such, there is a substantial relationship between the parties.
Although counsel argues that no confidential information has been received, “actual possession of confidential information is not required for an order of disqualification.” (Dill v. Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 301, 304.) “It is enough to show that there was a ‘substantial relationship’ between [the subjects of] the former and the current representation. If the former client establishes the existence of a substantial relationship between the two representations the court will conclusively presume that the attorney possesses confidential information adverse to the former client and order disqualification.” (National Grange of Order of Patrons of Husbandry v. California Guild (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 706, 714
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Although analyzed in a former client context, the above reasoning is applicable in this instance due to Plaintiff’s counsel being employed by Defendant’s former counsel. By virtue of the employment status between Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s former counsel, which arose during this litigation, the court conclusively presumes Plaintiff’s counsel possesses confidential information adverse to Plaintiff.
“The paramount concern must be to preserve public trust in the scrupulous administration of justice and the 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.” (People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1145.)
Accordingly, the motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel is granted.