§Why CasetextPricing

motion to disqualify donohue fitzgerald from representing the westlake

undefined

11 Cited authorities

  1. Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman

    51 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 1,310 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that an attorney "may not do anything which will injuriously affect former client in any matter in which [the attorney] formerly represented [the client]"

  2. People ex Rel. Dept., Corps. v. Speedee O. Chg. Sys

    20 Cal.4th 1135 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 550 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where trial court resolved disputed facts, appellate courts review for abuse of discretion, but where there are no disputed factual issues, appellate courts review the trial court's determination as a question of law

  3. Flatt v. Superior Court

    9 Cal.4th 275 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 371 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where the requisite substantial relationship exists, "access to confidential information by the attorney in the course of the first representation (relevant, by definition, to the second representation) is presumed and disqualification of the attorney's representation of the second client is mandatory; indeed, the disqualification extends vicariously to the entire firm"

  4. In re Complex Asbestos Litigation

    232 Cal.App.3d 572 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 156 times
    Finding disqualification appropriate where a law firm hired a paralegal that had worked for opposing counsel and learned information from him that, without "question," was covered by the "attorney-client" privilege

  5. H.F. Ahmanson Co. v. Salomon Brothers, Inc.

    229 Cal.App.3d 1445 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 129 times
    Cautioning that "to apply the remedy of disqualification" only "when there is no realistic chance that confidences were disclosed would go far beyond the purpose of the substantial relationship test"

  6. Sharp v. Next Entertainment

    163 Cal.App.4th 410 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 58 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing “ ‘the autonomy of individuals to make reasoned judgments about the trade-offs that are at stake’ ” after they are informed of counsel's potential conflict

  7. Forrest v. Baeza

    58 Cal.App.4th 65 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 44 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he strict proscription against dual representation of clients with adverse interests . . . derives from a concern with protecting the integrity of the attorney-client relationship rather than from concerns with the risk of specific acts of disloyalty or diminution of the quality of the attorney's representation"

  8. People ex Rel. Deukmejian v. Brown

    29 Cal.3d 150 (Cal. 1981)   Cited 68 times
    In Brown, the court concluded that the Attorney General could not maintain a lawsuit against public officials and agencies when the Attorney General's view of the public interest as reflected in the lawsuit was contrary to the views of the Governor.

  9. Wutchumna Water Co. v. Bailey

    216 Cal. 564 (Cal. 1932)   Cited 59 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Wutchumna Water Co. v. Bailey (1932) 216 Cal. 564, 573-574 [ 15 P.2d 505], this court declared that "an attorney is forbidden to do either of two things after severing his relationship with a former client.

  10. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 23,013 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  11. Rule 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 15 times

    (a)Authorization for electronic service When a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission, the document may be served electronically under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, Penal Code section 690.5, and the rules in this chapter. For purposes of electronic service made pursuant to Penal Code section 690.5, express consent to electronic service is required.[]= (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2022; previously amended effective January 1, 2007