Patel v. Brahmbhatt CA4/3

Filed 07/18/23 Patel v. Brahmbhatt CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SAMIR J. PATEL et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents, G061401

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2021-01188360)

SUNIL A. BRAHMBHATT et al., OPINION

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, John C. Gastelum, Judge. Affirmed. Brown Rudnick, Leo J. Presiado and Shoshana B. Kaiser for Defendants and Appellants. Justin J. Shrenger for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Attorney Sunil A. Brahmbhatt entered into an investment deal with a client, Samir J. Patel. Patel and other investors (the plaintiff-investors) eventually sued Brahmbhatt and other defendants; Brahmbhatt currently represents all defendants in the case. The plaintiff-investors, including Patel, filed a motion to disqualify Brahmbhatt as counsel for defendants. The trial court granted the motion, and Brahmbhatt appealed. We affirm. Brahmbhatt does not dispute he cannot represent defendants at trial, during depositions, or in any pretrial evidentiary hearing, given his role as a key witness in the case. We need not decide whether it would be an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to disqualify Brahmbhatt at this stage of the litigation, while demurrers to some causes of action are still pending. Brahmbhatt must be disqualified from representing defendants at this stage of the proceedings for an independent reason. The California Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit an attorney from revealing or using to his or her own advantage the confidences of a client, and require the attorney to maintain his or her duty of loyalty to the client. Brahmbhatt’s representation of clients/codefendants directly adverse to his former client, Patel, in a case involving Brahmbhatt’s solicitation of an investment by Patel in Brahmbhatt’s business would violate those duties. The trial court did not err in disqualifying Brahmbhatt from this case.