City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court

Good Law
122 Cal. App. 4th 17·18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 403·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1479·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8287
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 7, 2004B175204California3,357 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vegan, J.

An attorney who switches sides during litigation is disqualified from representing his or her former adversary. The disqualification extends to the attorney’s entire new law firm. But a city attorney’s office is not a “law firm” within the meaning of the vicarious disqualification rule. As we shall explain, in an ordinary civil case, disqualification of a nonsupervisorial deputy city attorney should not result in the vicarious disqualification of the entire city attorney’s office. Such would deprive the city of its counsel of choice, result in an unnecessary burden on the public fisc, and provide an unnecessary litigation disadvantage to the city.

To be sure, the appearance of justice is important and the courts should, when necessary, do everything in their power to protect the confidentiality of attorney client communications. However, in the presenting circumstances, the creation and maintenance of an “ethical wall” or “ethical screen” is sufficient to protect the confidentiality of attorney client communications, as well as the integrity of the judicial process.

Facts

On June 1, 2003, water and sewage from a City of Santa Barbara (City) main flooded portions of the…

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.