New Theories for Non-Clients to Seek Disqualification of Counsel

Most disqualification cases arise from a conflict of interest involving disclosure or the threat of disclosure of confidential information.1 On occasion, a disqualification motion will be made upon the alleged unethical conduct of adverse counsel. In some cases, courts have held that a litigant may have standing to assert a basis for disqualification of the opposing counsel even where there was no pre-existing attorney-client relationship between that counsel and the moving party, and confidential information was not involved.

[Full Article at Los Angeles County Bar Association]

The Crossroads of Confidentiality and the Litigation Privilege

Will the litigation privilege protect a lawyer who discloses information to a state agency about the prospective unlawful conduct of a former client? A recent Second District Court of Appeal decision, Fremont Reorganizing Corporation v. Faigin,1 establishes important precedent regarding the application of anti-SLAPP protections in actions between a lawyer and a former client, as well as clarifies the scope of the litigation privilege and whether it applies in the client’s claim for breach of the duty of confidentiality.

[Full Article at Los Angeles County Bar Association]

Ethical Concerns Regarding Mediation Confidentiality and the Implications of Cassel

pdf iconOrange County Lawyer Magazine In most litigation matters the subject of mediation is at the forefront of the settlement process. Judges and lawyers routinely assume that nearly every significant case will go to mediation. Yet, until the Legislature acts… lawyers are now literally exempt from liability for misconduct at or related to mediation if the evidence is dependent upon communications related to the mediation. [Download PDF]

Discounting Your Fees: Is it an Ethical Violation?

A recent court of appeal decision resolved the question of whether it is unethical for a lawyer to offer to discount legal fees to encourage a client to settle an action. In Chan v. Lund, 188 Cal. App. 4th 1159 (2010), the Sixth Appellate District concluded that the attorney’s offer does not constitute a “business transaction” subject to the disclosure requirements of Rule 3-300 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

[Full Article at Los Angeles County Bar Association]