Thanks to the grab-the-bull-by-the-horns decision from Justice H. Walter Croskey of the Second District Court of Appeal, firms hiring a lateral attorney from a firm adverse to their client can sleep more soundly at night without worrying about a nasty disqualification motion.
For decades, California firms have had little guidance as to whether walling or screening off a “tainted” lateral hire would really stand up to a motion seeking to disqualify the entire firm. In fact, after mixed messages from the California Supreme Court, our appellate courts have run the spectrum, from automatic vicarious disqualification of the entire hiring firm to a case-by-case analysis of whether a screen would work or not. Inconsistent rulings created a situation that was hardly reassuring to an attorney moving to a new firm or to a firm considering whether to bring a new attorney on, because of the possibility of losing a long-standing piece of litigation or a valued client.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
