Panther

Panther v. Park

Good Law
101 Cal. App. 4th 69·123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 599
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 15, 2003D039601, D039633California3,067 words

Opinion

Opinion

Neil, Dymott, Perkins, Brown & Frank, Michael I. Neil and James A. McFall, San

Diego, for Defendant and Real Party in Interest Financial Asset Management Foundation.

Drath, Clifford, Murphy, Wennerholm & Hagan, John R. Clifford and Tammara N. Tukloff for Defendant and Real Party in Interest Ken Tremblett.

Review Transferred to Court of Appeal January 15, 2003.

McINTYRE, J.

We hold in this case that the personal disqualification of an attorney based on an earlier adverse representation will not automatically lead to the vicarious disqualification of a law firm in a different but substantially related litigation; rather, the law firm may rebut a presumption of shared confidences and avoid vicarious disqualification by showing that effective screening methods were in place that prevented the passing of confidential information from the individual attorney to others in the firm.

James B. Panther has petitioned this court for a writ of mandate directing the superior court to set aside its order granting the motion of CanAm Properties, LLC (CanAm), William Park, and Financial Asset Management Foundation (FAMF) to disqualify Panther's counsel—the firm of Mazzarella, Dunwoody &…

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.