Carroll

Carroll v. Superior Court

Good Law
101 Cal. App. 4th 1423·124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 891·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4640·2002 Daily Journal DAR 10601·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9459
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 13, 2002D039951California3,110 words

Opinion

Opinion

McDONALD, J.

Under California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-310 (Rule 3-310) an attorney may not accept a new representation of multiple clients when there exists a potential conflict of interest between those prospective clients, and must withdraw from an existing representation of multiple clients when an actual conflict of interest arises among those existing clients. (Rule 3-310(C)(1), (2).) With these fundamental precepts as guideposts, we examine whether and to what extent the Legislature’s addition of new subdivision (c)(1)(E) to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 requires the trial court to grant the motion by multiple minors’ current attorney to be relieved as their counsel and to appoint new separate counsel for each minor.

I

Background

A. The Clients

In 1999 section 300 petitions were filed by the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency), alleging the seven minor children of Norma M. were within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The public defender was appointed as counsel for all of the minors. Deputy Public Defender Virginia Henkels appeared on behalf of all the minors. The court sustained the petitions and entered…

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.