34 Cited authorities

Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller
472 U.S. 424 (1985) Cited 557 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding an order disqualifying counsel in a civil case did not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine
Gomez v. Vernon
255 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 631 times
Holding that "repeated threats of transfer because of [the plaintiff's] complaints about the administration of the [prison] library" were sufficient to ground a retaliation claim
Costco v. Superior Ct.
47 Cal.4th 725 (Cal. 2009) Cited 303 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that the privilege "does not extend to subject matter otherwise unprivileged merely because that subject matter has been communicated to the attorney"
Fox Searchlight Pictures v. Paladino Inc.
89 Cal.App.4th 294 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 241 times 2 Legal Analyses
Concluding party met anti-SLAPP's step one burden where the court could not say "from the record before [it]" that the party's use of confidential information was "not an act in furtherance of the preparation" of lawsuit
Optyl Eyewear Fashion v. Style Companies
760 F.2d 1045 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 264 times
Holding that express findings were not necessary where the record supports a finding that the sanctioned attorney acted in bad faith
Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.
42 Cal.4th 807 (Cal. 2007) Cited 86 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding counsel needed to cease document review once it became apparent the document contained attorney impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research and/or theories
Gregori v. Bank of America
207 Cal.App.3d 291 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) Cited 146 times
Affirming order denying disqualification and stating that "[T]he purpose of a disqualification order must be prophlylactic, not punitive . . . Thus, disqualification is inappropriate simply to punish a dereliction that will likely have no substantial continuing effect on future judicial proceedings . . . There are other sanctions which in that situation must suffice, including imposition of attorneys fees and costs incurred by the other side as a result of the misconduct."
Zurich American v. Superior Court
155 Cal.App.4th 1485 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 83 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the corporate attorney-client privilege extends to confidential communications between agents of the client regarding legal advice and strategy, in which the corporation's attorneys are not directly involved or which do not include excerpts of direct communications from the attorneys.
Liberty National Enterprises, L.P. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co.
194 Cal.App.4th 839 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 74 times
Finding substantial delay after former client was on “inquiry notice” of attorney's possible knowledge of former client's procedures rendered disqualification motion untimely
State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WPS, Inc.
70 Cal.App.4th 644 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 105 times 5 Legal Analyses
Concluding that counsel "should have not been sanctioned for engaging in conduct condemned by an ABA formal opinion, but which has not been condemned by any decision, statute, or Rule of Professional Conduct applicable in this state" and reversing sanctions order
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,405 times 647 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Section 6068 - Duties of attorney
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068 Cited 912 times 12 Legal Analyses
Requiring attorney "[t]o maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client"

Ritchie v. Sempra Energy

34 Cited authorities

Holding an order disqualifying counsel in a civil case did not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine

Holding that "repeated threats of transfer because of [the plaintiff's] complaints about the administration of the [prison] library" were sufficient to ground a retaliation claim

Holding that the privilege "does not extend to subject matter otherwise unprivileged merely because that subject matter has been communicated to the attorney"

Concluding party met anti-SLAPP's step one burden where the court could not say "from the record before [it]" that the party's use of confidential information was "not an act in furtherance of the preparation" of lawsuit

Holding that express findings were not necessary where the record supports a finding that the sanctioned attorney acted in bad faith

Holding counsel needed to cease document review once it became apparent the document contained attorney impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research and/or theories

Holding that the corporate attorney-client privilege extends to confidential communications between agents of the client regarding legal advice and strategy, in which the corporation's attorneys are not directly involved or which do not include excerpts of direct communications from the attorneys.

Finding substantial delay after former client was on “inquiry notice” of attorney's possible knowledge of former client's procedures rendered disqualification motion untimely

Concluding that counsel "should have not been sanctioned for engaging in conduct condemned by an ABA formal opinion, but which has not been condemned by any decision, statute, or Rule of Professional Conduct applicable in this state" and reversing sanctions order

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Requiring attorney "[t]o maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client"