People v. Doolin

Holding defendant's request to represent himself was untimely where he sought self-representation at sentencing hearing only after his Marsden motion was denied

Flatt v. Superior Court

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"

Concat LP v. Unilever, PLC

Holding that disqualification is a "drastic" measure that should be used only when "absolutely necessary"

American Airlines v. Sheppard

Holding that although defendants had been "disingenuous" and acted with "willful and conscious disregard" of the plaintiff's interests, their conduct did not "reach the level of despicability found in cases in which punitive damages were found to be proper"

Visa U.S.A., Inc. v. First Data Corp.

Finding the client gave informed consent, reasoning, in part, that the client was a Fortune 500 company; it had its own legal department; it routinely hired national law firms to handle its more complex legal matters, and accordingly, it was “expected to understand the full extent of what it waived....”

Maxwell v. Superior Court

Holding that a potential conflict between attorney and client created by the client's assigning to the attorney exclusive "publicity rights" in the subject matter of the representation could be waived and was not sufficient grounds for disqualification

Lysick v. Walcom

In Lysick, an attorney was retained by an insurer to defend against the liability of its insured in a wrongful death action and was thus representing both the insurer and the insured.

Zador Corp. v. Kwan

Upholding an advanced waiver in which the prospective, adverse client was specifically named

Western Sugar Coop. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.

Holding ineffective an "open-ended" conflict waiver signed by a sophisticated client that purported to indefinitely waive conflicts in any matter not substantially related and did not identify a potentially adverse client, the types of potential conflicts, or the nature of the potential future representations

Forrest v. Baeza

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"

Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice