Cho

Cho v. Superior Court

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 1019·39 Cal. App. 4th 113·45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 863·95 Daily Journal DAR 14192·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8237
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 19, 1995B093767California5,182 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

The issue in this case is whether a law firm must be disqualified as counsel in a lawsuit after employing the retired judge who had presided over the action and had received ex parte confidences from the opposing party in the course of settlement conferences. We conclude that screening procedures are not sufficient to preserve public trust in the justice system in these circumstances and therefore the firm must be disqualified.

Factual and Procedural Summary

Petitioner is the plaintiff in an action entitled Cho v. Cho Hung Bank (Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. BC080299) (the action) pending in respondent court. This writ proceeding stems from the denial of petitioner’s motion to disqualify the law firm of Graham & James, counsel for real party in interest Cho Hung Bank, after Eric E. Younger, the judge who had presided over the action, retired and joined Graham & James in an “of counsel” capacity.

Judge Younger was assigned to the action and held three settlement conferences at various stages of the proceedings. The petition for writ of mandate states: “Petitioner’s posture in the settlement conferences accordingly changed at such stages, not the least of which was…

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.