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

plaintiffattorneyappealtrialmotionconsumer protectionclass action
plaintiffattorneyappealtrialmotionconsumer protectionclass action

Related Cases

Wiesmueller v. Kosobucki, 513 F.3d 784
View Case »
Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers v. Henry, 276 Ga. 571, 581 S.E.2d 37, 03 FCDR 1560
View Case »
In re Amino Acid Lysine Antitrust Litigation, 910 F.Supp. 696, 1995-2 Trade Cases P 71,226
View Case »
Olfe v. Gordon, 93 Wis.2d 173, 286 N.W.2d 573
View Case »
Dike v. Dike, 75 Wash.2d 1, 448 P.2d 490
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kirk v. First American Title Ins. Co., 183 Cal.App.4th 776, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 620, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4356, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5212

Facts

The dispute arose from four related class actions against First American Title Insurance Company, alleging violations of consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs' counsel had previously communicated confidential information to Gary Cohen, who later joined the law firm Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, which was representing First American. After the plaintiffs moved to disqualify Sonnenschein based on Cohen's prior communications, the trial court granted the motion, leading to the appeal.

The dispute arose from four related class actions against First American Title Insurance Company, alleging violations of consumer protection laws.

Issue

Whether Sonnenschein must be automatically vicariously disqualified from representing First American due to the prior confidential communications between plaintiffs' counsel and attorney Gary Cohen.

Whether Sonnenschein must be automatically vicariously disqualified from representing First American due to the prior confidential communications between plaintiffs' counsel and attorney Gary Cohen.

Rule

When an attorney obtains confidential information from a client, that attorney is prohibited from accepting representation adverse to the client in a matter to which the confidential information would be material. However, automatic vicarious disqualification of the attorney's entire law firm is not required if the firm can demonstrate adequate screening of the attorney.

When an attorney obtains confidential information from a client, that attorney is prohibited from accepting a representation adverse to the client in a matter to which the confidential information would be material.

Analysis

The Court of Appeal analyzed the circumstances surrounding the disqualification motion and determined that the trial court's reliance on automatic vicarious disqualification was misplaced. The court emphasized that the law firm could rebut the presumption of imputed knowledge of client confidences by showing that it had implemented an effective ethical screen to prevent the disqualified attorney from participating in the related class actions.

The Court of Appeal analyzed the circumstances surrounding the disqualification motion and determined that the trial court's reliance on automatic vicarious disqualification was misplaced.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order granting disqualification, concluding that Sonnenschein could continue to represent First American provided it could demonstrate that it had adequately screened Cohen from the case.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order granting disqualification, concluding that Sonnenschein could continue to represent First American provided it could demonstrate that it had adequately screened Cohen from the case.

Who won?

Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP prevailed in the appeal, as the Court of Appeal ruled that automatic disqualification was not warranted and allowed the firm to continue its representation of First American.

Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP prevailed in the appeal, as the Court of Appeal ruled that automatic disqualification was not warranted and allowed the firm to continue its representation of First American.

You must be