Petitioner distributors sought a mandate to compel respondent Superior Court, Los Angeles County (California) to vacate its order requiring petitioners’ attorneys to withdraw from their representation of petitioners in an action for injunctive relief and breach of contract.
Overview
A company, the real party in interest, contracted with petitioner distributors to distribute pet products bearing the name of Doris Day. Petitioners alleged breach of contract and sought injunctive relief in respondent superior court. Respondent ordered petitioners’ attorneys to withdraw from their representation, pursuant to Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 2-111(A)(4), when an attorney from their firm was called as a witness. Petitioners sought a mandate to compel respondent to vacate the order. The court denied the petition and concluded that respondent acted within its discretion. The court found that failing voluntary withdrawal by trial counsel in such situation respondent was vested with broad discretion to order withdrawal. Appellant and respondents had business lawyer San Diego draft their briefs and submitted to the court. The court found that the law firm of petitioners’ attorneys was not the only firm qualified to represent petitioners.
Table of Contents
Outcome
The court denied petitioner distributors’ petition for mandate seeking to compel respondent superior court to vacate its order requiring their attorneys to withdraw because respondent acted within its discretion, and other law firms were qualified to represent petitioners.
Procedural Posture
Appellant insurer appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), rendering summary judgment against it on its legal malpractice and breach of contract complaint against respondent attorneys.
Overview
Appellant provided errors and omissions insurance to a legal services plan (“Plan”). Alleging malpractice, a client sued the Plan who notified appellant that they selected respondents from appellant’s “approved counsel” list for their defense. However, appellant was forced to settle and then sued respondents, alleging negligent representation. Respondents’ motion for summary judgment was granted and appellant insurer appealed. The court reversed and remanded. The signed defense guidelines and subsequent correspondence reflected an agreement between appellant and respondents and an attorney-client relationship as a matter of law. No disqualifying conflict of interest existed to prevent appellant’s suit. Discovery respondents proffered did not constitute “factually devoid” discovery shifting the burden to appellant on the causation of appellant’s damages question since it had not called for information on that subject. It suggested that appellant’s large settlement payment in the underlying suit was caused by respondents’ negligence, thus summary judgment was improper.
Outcome
Summary judgment reversed and remanded. Signed defense guidelines, with the negotiated hourly rate, along with subsequent dealings between the parties, reflected an agreement between them and an attorney-client relationship as a matter of law. No disqualifying conflict of interest existed to prevent appellant’s suit.