Petitioner filed this petition, seeking a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying Hartley & Hartley. The trial court agreed and granted the motion. They asserted there was a presumption that Murchison & Cumming had divulged confidential information to Hartley & Hartley. Real parties filed a motion to disqualify Hartley & Hartley, based on their prior attorney-client relationship with Murchison & Cumming. Nonetheless, some time after the firm realized what had happened, it withdrew from representation of the insurer. Ultimately, real parties did not retain Murchison & Cumming. In April 2001, Longo informed Hartley he had come to learn that, before they filed suit, the real parties in interest had contacted one of the partners in the Los Angeles office of Murchison & Cumming about possible representation. Longo agreed to cover the depositions in question, which began in March 2001. ![]() Hartley was unavailable to attend certain scheduled depositions on petitioner's behalf. Murchison & Cumming Attorney Dan Longo, whose office is in Santa Ana, was designated to represent the insurer. It also chose to continue using Murchison & Cumming to represent its own interests. The insurer approved petitioner's request for Hartley & Hartley, petitioner's general counsel, to act as Cumis counsel. Subsequently, the insurer decided to appoint Cumis counsel. Petitioner's insurer hired Murchison & Cumming to defend the matters. Most of the cases have been consolidated. Altogether, petitioner was named as a defendant in approximately 15 lawsuits concerning the program. Sheila Ames and others (real parties in interest or real parties) filed suit against Jeffrey Frazier (petitioner) in connection with his involvement in the Willed Body Program at the University of California, Irvine. Case law does not support the double imputation. In this context, the disqualification of Cumis counsel would require a double imputation of knowledge of confidential information - first from one member of the law firm representing the insurer to another member of that firm, and second from the latter attorney to a different law firm entirely. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its disqualification order, contending the court overextended the rules of vicarious disqualification. 2 counsel because the insurer's counsel, which had a conflict of interest of which it was then unaware, covered a few depositions for Cumis counsel. The superior court entered an order disqualifying petitioner's Cumis fn. ![]() In this case, we examine the outer boundaries of the application of the substantial relationship test for vicarious disqualification of counsel. Comer Law Office of Gary Sodikoff and Gary J. ![]() THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent SHEILA AMES et al., Real Parties in Interest.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |