Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffattorneyappealtrialmotionbad faith
contractplaintiffattorneyappealtrialbad faith

Related Cases

Zeidwig v. Ward, 548 So.2d 209, 58 USLW 2161, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 392
View Case »
George v. Caton, 93 N.M. 370, 600 P.2d 822, 1979-NMCA-028
View Case »
George v. Caton, 93 N.M. 370, 600 P.2d 822, 1979-NMCA-028
View Case »
Wunschel Law Firm, P.C. v. Clabaugh, 291 N.W.2d 331, 9 A.L.R.4th 181
View Case »
Lopez v. Clifford Law Offices, P.C., 362 Ill.App.3d 969, 841 N.E.2d 465, 299 Ill.Dec. 53
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Farris v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 119 Cal.App.4th 671, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 618, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5355, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7318

Facts

The plaintiffs, including Jason Farris, alleged that FFIC acted in bad faith by failing to provide benefits under an insurance contract and denying coverage for a personal injury action. Wilkins, who had previously represented FFIC for 13 years, moved to represent the plaintiffs. FFIC argued that Wilkins had access to confidential information that was material to the current case, prompting them to seek his disqualification. The trial court initially denied the motion, leading to the appeal.

The plaintiffs, including Jason Farris, alleged that FFIC acted in bad faith by failing to provide benefits under an insurance contract and denying coverage for a personal injury action.

Issue

Whether Attorney James H. Wilkins and his law firm should be disqualified from representing the plaintiffs due to a substantial relationship between his former representation of FFIC and his current representation.

Whether Attorney James H. Wilkins and his law firm should be disqualified from representing the plaintiffs due to a substantial relationship between his former representation of FFIC and his current representation.

Rule

The court applied the principle that an attorney must be disqualified from representing a client in a matter if there is a substantial relationship between the former representation and the current representation, particularly if the attorney had access to confidential information material to the current case.

The court applied the principle that an attorney must be disqualified from representing a client in a matter if there is a substantial relationship between the former representation and the current representation, particularly if the attorney had access to confidential information material to the current case.

Analysis

The court found that Wilkins's previous work for FFIC as a coverage attorney involved direct and personal relationships with key decision-makers at FFIC, and that the legal issues in the current case were substantially related to those he dealt with while representing FFIC. The court emphasized that the focus should be on the similarities between the legal problems involved in both representations rather than the specific tasks performed.

The court found that Wilkins's previous work for FFIC as a coverage attorney involved direct and personal relationships with key decision-makers at FFIC, and that the legal issues in the current case were substantially related to those he dealt with while representing FFIC.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision and held that Wilkins and his firm were disqualified from representing the plaintiffs due to the substantial relationship with FFIC.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision and held that Wilkins and his firm were disqualified from representing the plaintiffs due to the substantial relationship with FFIC.

Who won?

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (FFIC) prevailed in the appeal as the court ruled in their favor regarding the disqualification of Wilkins.

You must be