Law Practice,
Ethics/Professional Responsibility,
California Courts of Appeal,
Appellate Practice
Nov. 30, 2017
The dangers of attorney disqualification motions
Despite its holding, the Court of Appeal's decision (as well as the trial court's order) serves as a reminder that courts take seriously their role in enforcing lawyers' and law firms' ethical duties of confidentiality in cases involving potential confidential relationships.
Matthew S. Kahn
Partner
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
555 Mission St
San Francisco , CA 94105
Phone: (415) 393-8212
Email: mkahn@gibsondunn.com
Stanford Univ Law School; Stanford CA
Soolean Choy
Associate
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Email: schoy@gibsondunn.com
Columbia Univ SOL; New York NY
A recent appellate ruling reversed a trial court's decision to disqualify a law firm from defending its client in a suit brought by the client's retained real estate broker. In Lynn v. George, 15 Cal. App. 5th 630 (2017), the 4th District Court of Appeal found that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding of a "confidential nonclient relationship" between the broker and the law firm. It declined to uphold the dis...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In