Legal Opinion

Banning Ranch Conservancy v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 22, 2011No. G044223PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*908Opinion

THE COURT.*

Litigants have a right to be represented by counsel of their choice, particularly in substantive areas requiring particular expertise. In short, they have the right to hire the best professionals for their team. But they cannot induce their adversary’s attorney to switch sides midstream. There is a rule of automatic disqualification where counsel breaches the duty of loyalty by simultaneously representing two current clients with adverse interests.

What does it mean to be a current client? This may not be as obvious as it seems. More than five years ago, petitioner’s counsel…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
  2. People Ex Rel. Deparment of Corporations. v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Flatt v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Lewis v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  5. City of Hope National Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2008

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District v. Department of Water ResourcesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  2. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Mfg. Co.California Supreme Court · 2018
  3. Ducoing Management, Inc. v. Superior Court of Orange CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. M'Guinness v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. Western Sugar Coop. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.District Court, C.D. California · 2015

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API