In re Charlisse C., 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 597, 194 P.3d 330 (Cal. 2008)
Brief Summary
In a juvenile dependency proceeding, the California Supreme Court discussed the standard that controls disqualification of counsel from public law firms and legal service agencies due to conflicts of interest.
Complete Summary
The Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles (“CLC”) represented Charlisse C. in a juvenile dependency petition under the California Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 300. The petition alleged in part that Charlisse was at substantial risk of being abused and neglected due to the emotional and mental health problems of Shadonna C., her mother and a former CLC client.
Starting in 1990, CLC was comprised of three independent legal units: Unit 1, Unit 2 and Unit 3. Each unit functioned as a separate law firm for the purpose of enabling the representation of clients with conflicting interests. Due to restructuring under the CLC’s former executive director, Miriam Krinsky, two of the units were to be phased out. CLC would no longer represent parents, and children’s cases were transferred to Unit 1.
The CLC attorney appointed by the juvenile court to represent Charlisse was an attorney in Unit 3. Shadonna objected to the appointment on the grounds that she was a client of Unit 1 when she was a child and that a conflict of interest existed because, in light of CLC’s structural changes, its three units were operating as one firm. Shadonna argued that because CLC’s prior representation of her was substantially related to CLC’s current representation of Charlisse, disqualification was appropriate unless CLC showed it complied with the structure set forth in Castro v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors, 232 Cal. App.3d 1432, 1441 (1991) and People v. Christian, 41 Cal. App.4th 986, 997 (1996), both of which involved concurrent representation conflicts of interest. Shadonna presented evidence that, under the guidance of Krinsky, the CLC had violated the ethical walls required on that case.
Although the juvenile court did not find an actual conflict of interest or improper disclosure of confidential information, it nonetheless concluded that the ethical screens had been eroded; thus, warranting CLC’s disqualification. In a divided decision, the majority of the Court of Appeal reversed the disqualification order, stating that the Castro factors were not dispositive because Castro involved concurrent, rather than successive, representation.
The Supreme Court of California reasoned that the Castro and Christian factors which were related to concurrent representation were not dispositive and concluded that the juvenile court applied the incorrect legal standard in disqualifying CLC. In applying what it deemed to be the correct legal standard, the court stated that disqualification of an attorney is required if “the [former] client demonstrates[s] a ‘substantial relationship’ between the subjects of the antecedent and current representations.” Charlisse, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d at 608 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Although this rule of vicarious disqualification has often been extended to require disqualification of a disqualified lawyer’s entire law firm, the court declined to apply an automatic rule of vicarious disqualification in this matter. The court cited the following as considerations that distinguish the practice of legal services counsel from that of private attorneys: (1) legal services counsel do not have a financial interest in the matters on which they work and (2) disqualification of legal services counsel could result in an increase in public expenditures for legal representation. In light of this distinction, the courts have looked to whether public law offices have adequately protected and will continue to protect the former client’s confidences through timely, appropriate and effective screening measures and/or structural safeguards. Where, however, a lawyer with an actual conflict has managerial, supervisory and/or policymaking responsibilities in a public law firm, screening may not be sufficient to avoid vicarious disqualification of the entire law office.
The court opined that the juvenile court should have made a factual inquiry into the supervisor’s actual duties in relation to those attorneys who would be ethically screened as well as the supervisor’s responsibility for setting policies that might bear on the subordinate attorney’s handling of the litigation. With regard to whether CLC’s disqualification was warranted, the correct inquiry turned on the likelihood that the Unit 3 attorney appointed by the juvenile court to represent Charlisse obtained, or would be able to obtain either intentionally or inadvertently, confidential information that CLC acquired through its Unit 1 prior representation of Shadonna.
The court remanded the matter for further consideration, but noted that the burden is on CLC to show that the confidential information acquired during Unit 1’s prior representation of Shadonna had been, and will be, adequately protected during Unit 3’s proposed representation of Charlisse.
Significance of Opinion
Under California law, a public law firm may sometimes use ethical walls or screens to cure former client conflicts.
This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.
Register Now for the Eighth Annual Legal Malpractice & Risk Management Conference
March 4-6, 2009
The Westin Chicago River North Hotel
320 North Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois
Attend the industry's premier annual event focused on current and important developments in the law and litigation of malpractice claims, legal malpractice insurance and risk management strategies. Each conference panel examines recent case law and significant developments throughout the last year. One and one-half days will be devoted to legal malpractice (March 4-5), and one and one-half days will be devoted to risk management (March 5-6). The conference will be held in Chicago at The Westin Chicago River North Hotel.
Earn up to 13.75 hours of CLE credit including up to 5.50 ethics credit!
Conference Topics
Legal Malpractice Sessions (March 4-5)
• Guess Where You Are Being Sued — Bankruptcy Court
• What You Need to Know About Developments in Litigating Legal Malpractice Claims
• Beyond the Basics — Selecting and Using Expert Witnesses
• Insurance Law — Prior Knowledge and Additional Negligence Claims
• Statutory Causes of Action — Consumer Protection Statutes
• Can I Say What Really Happened?
• Stump the Panel
Legal Malpractice/Risk Management Cross-Over Sessions (March 5)
• In the Spotlight — The Exposure of Patent Lawyers
• The Insurance Marketplace
• How to Mitigate Your Damage Exposure as a Defendant
Keynote Address (March 5)
• The Debate Over the Billable Hour: A Rigorous Look at Competing Law Firm Profitability Models
Risk Management Sessions (March 5-6)
• The General Counsel Forum
• Plaintiff’s Perspective — Red Flags and Selection Criteria
• Risk Management and Electronic Advertising — Websites and E-mail
• Going, Going, Gone: Lawyers Who Leave and the Firms Left Behind
• On the Horizon — MJP, Alternative Business Structures, and Alternative Billing
Registration Fees
$1,300 for the Entire Conference — March 4-6
$925 for the Legal Malpractice Sessions Only — March 4-5
$925 for the Risk Management Sessions Only — March 5-6
Discounts (maximum 15% discount)
Returning registrants receive 5% off the conference price
Multiple registrants receive 15% off when another colleague from the same company registers (one full paid registrant required)
For more information, please visit www.LMRM.com or click here to Register Online Now! To speak with the Conference Planner, Katherine McCormack, please call 312-704-3329.
|