Jackson v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STRANKMAN, P. J.
Defense counsel was disqualified for communicating with plaintiff’s ex-wife, a former plaintiff whose loss of consortium cause of action was dismissed over two years earlier after she separated from plaintiff. The trial court found that defense counsel’s communication violated a professional ethics rule proscribing communications with represented parties. (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 2-100 [Deering’s Cal. Codes Ann. Rules (State Bar) (1988 ed., 1995 pocket supp.)] (Rule 2-100.) Plaintiff claims his ex-wife continued to be represented by the law firm retained to prosecute…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Comden v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Chronometrics, Inc. v. Sysgen, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1980
- Abeles v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Nalian Truck Lines, Inc. v. Nakano Warehouse & Transportation Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1992
- Bobele v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
3Cited by10 opinions
- Snider v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Myerchin v. Family Benefits, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- HTC CORP. v. Technology Properties Ltd.District Court, N.D. California · 2010
- FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY v. Fremont General Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- McMillan v. Shadow Ridge at Oak Park Homeowner's Assn.California Court of Appeal · 2008
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.