Jackson v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 148·42 Cal. App. 4th 1163·50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 66·96 Daily Journal DAR 2059·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1221
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 23, 1996A070086California1,871 words

Opinion

Opinion

Strankman, J.

Defense counsel was disqualified for communicating with plaintiff’s ex-wife, a former plaintiff whose loss of consortium cause of action was dismissed over two years earlier after she separated from plaintiff. The trial court found that defense counsel’s communication violated a professional ethics rule proscribing communications with represented parties. (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 2-100 [Deering’s Cal. Codes Ann. Rules (State Bar) (1988 ed., 1995 pocket supp.)] (Rule 2-100.) Plaintiff claims his ex-wife continued to be represented by the law firm retained to prosecute their case while married, and defendants claim the ex-wife was no longer a represented party and could be freely contacted. We find no basis for the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff’s ex-wife was a represented party, and reverse the disqualification order.

Facts

In 1991, respondent Richard Herbert Jackson sued appellants IngersollRand Company and Voegtly and White claiming he was injured by his occupational use of their vibrating pneumatic tools. Respondent stated several causes of action, including negligence and product liability. Respondent’s wife, Janice Lee Jackson, also joined as a plaintiff…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.