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

lawsuitattorney
litigationattorneymotion

Related Cases

National Farmers Union Property and Cas. Co. v. District Court For City and County of Denver, 718 P.2d 1044
View Case »
Hoover v. Ronwin, 466 U.S. 558, 104 S.Ct. 1989, 80 L.Ed.2d 590, 1984-1 Trade Cases P 65,980
View Case »
Government of India v. Cook Industries, Inc., 569 F.2d 737
View Case »
Hoffert v. General Motors Corp., 656 F.2d 161
View Case »
Muhammad v. Walmart Stores East, L.P., 732 F.3d 104, 120 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 500
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

People ex rel. Deukmejian v. Brown, 29 Cal.3d 150, 624 P.2d 1206, 172 Cal.Rptr. 478

Facts

In 1977, the California Legislature enacted the State Employer-Employee Relations Act (SEERA). The then-Attorney General advised the Governor to sign the bill, which became effective in 1978. In 1979, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of SEERA, prompting the current Attorney General to meet with the State Personnel Board to discuss legal options. Shortly after, the Attorney General filed a separate petition against the Governor and other state agencies, seeking to declare SEERA unconstitutional.

The chronology of events is significant. The 1977 Legislature adopted a State Employer-Employee Relations Act (SEERA). While the Governor had the measure under consideration the then-Attorney General wrote to him under date of September 20, 1977, urging him to sign what he described as “a standard, well-accepted, existing method of resolving labor/management disputes … a good step forward.”

Issue

Whether the Attorney General could represent the state in a lawsuit against state agencies he had previously advised and represented regarding the same legal issues.

The issue then becomes whether the Attorney General may represent clients one day, give them legal advice with regard to pending litigation, withdraw, and then sue the same clients the next day on a purported cause of action arising out of the identical controversy.

Rule

The Attorney General, as the chief law officer of the state, has a duty to represent state agencies but cannot take a position adverse to those agencies without proper consent, especially when the issues arise from prior representation.

The rules of professional conduct to guide attorneys in their relationship with clients and former clients are well established and generally understood by all attorneys in this state.

Analysis

The court found that the Attorney General's actions created a conflict of interest, as he had previously provided legal advice to the state agencies regarding SEERA and then sought to challenge the constitutionality of that same act. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the attorney-client relationship and the ethical obligations of attorneys.

Unquestionably the Attorney General is now acting adversely to the position of his statutory clients, one of which consulted him regarding this specific matter.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the Attorney General's petition, ruling that he could not sue the state agencies he had previously represented on the same issues, thereby upholding the principle of attorney-client confidentiality and the ethical standards governing legal representation.

For the reasons stated, we enjoin the Attorney General from proceeding in this matter and order that the alternative writ be discharged and the petition be dismissed.

Who won?

The State Personnel Board and other state agencies prevailed because the court ruled that the Attorney General's conflict of interest disqualified him from bringing the lawsuit against them.

The Governor has chosen a proper remedy. It has been held that one way “in which the issue of a violation of the rule (of professional conduct) may be raised is by a motion by the former client in the case before the court to enjoin the adverse representation.

You must be