13 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Doolin

    45 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 2,533 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the state's lump-sum compensation agreement did not create a conflict of interest between the defendant and his attorney
  2. Flatt v. Superior Court

    9 Cal.4th 275 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 270 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"
  3. Concat LP v. Unilever, PLC

    350 F. Supp. 2d 796 (N.D. Cal. 2004)   Cited 108 times
    Holding that disqualification is a "drastic" measure that should be used only when "absolutely necessary"
  4. American Airlines v. Sheppard

    96 Cal.App.4th 1017 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 78 times
    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"
  5. Visa U.S.A., Inc. v. First Data Corp.

    241 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2003)   Cited 56 times
    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....”
  6. Maxwell v. Superior Court

    30 Cal.3d 606 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 85 times
    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
  7. Lysick v. Walcom

    258 Cal.App.2d 136 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 119 times
    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.
  8. W. Sugar Coop. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.

    98 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (C.D. Cal. 2015)   Cited 16 times
    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
  9. Zador Corp. v. Kwan

    31 Cal.App.4th 1285 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 41 times
    Upholding an advanced waiver in which the prospective, adverse client was specifically named
  10. Forrest v. Baeza

    58 Cal.App.4th 65 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 33 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"
  11. Rule 8.204 - Contents and format of briefs

    Cal. R. 8.204   Cited 2,659 times

    (a) Contents (1) Each brief must: (A) Begin with a table of contents and a table of authorities separately listing cases, constitutions, statutes, court rules, and other authorities cited; (B) State each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority; and (C) Support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears. If any part

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 362 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or