Disqualification of law firms for a conflict of interest is a common occurrence. The trend toward more disqualifications is, in part, a product of the continuing consolidation of the legal industry. Lateral movements create conflicts as the work of new attorneys get imputed to their new law firm. Increasingly, in today’s legal marketplace, clients and attorneys use disqualification motions as litigation tactics.
In Kirk v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., class action plaintiffs moved to disqualify a law firm representing the defendant company where the law firm employed an attorney who had obtained confidential information from plaintiff’s counsel related to the class action. 183 Cal. App. 4th 776, 108 Cal. Rptr. 3D 620 (2010). While the court held that automatic vicarious disqualification of the firm was not required, the court did find that there is a rebuttable presumption that the attorney’s knowledge of client confidences is imputed to the firm. Id. The presumption can only be refuted by evidence that the law firm adequately screened the attorney from the other attorneys at the firm representing the adverse party. Id.
This content has been archived.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]
