Strasbourger

Strasbourger Pearson Tulcin Wolff Inc. v. Wiz Technology, Inc.

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 131·69 Cal. App. 4th 1399·82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 326·99 Daily Journal DAR 1505·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1232
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 16, 1999G021136California4,270 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wallin, J.

Strasbourger Pearson Tulcin Wolff Inc., Michael J. Schumacher, and Allan M. Levine (collectively Strasbourger) appeal the order disqualifying Stroock & Stroock & Lavan and Michael F. Perils, a member of the firm (collectively Stroock), from representing Strasbourger in the action below, claiming the trial court abused its discretion because: (1) Stroock’s representation caused, at most, the mere appearance of impropriety; (2) Stroock represented Strasbourger, the underwriter in Wiz Technology, Inc.’s (Wiz) stock offering, and never represented Wiz; (3) even if Stroock technically represented Wiz, the trial court failed to determine whether a substantial relationship existed; (4) Wiz had no reasonable expectation any of the information it gave to Stroock would be kept confidential; (5) Stroock’s representation of Wiz’s former auditors did not give rise to a duty of confidentiality to Wiz; and (6) the trial court failed to consider that Wiz’s motion to disqualify Stroock was tardy and brought solely for tactical purposes. We reverse.

Strasbourger, an investment banking firm, served as an underwriter for Wiz’s public stock offering. It purchased 1,820,000 shares of Wiz…

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.