Garau

DISCUSSION

I. Disqualification of Counsel

Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in rejecting her arguments that the Legal Unit was statutorily and ethically barred from representing the state defendants in this case. Disqualification rulings are typically reviewed for an abuse of discretion (Roush v. Seagate Technology, LLC (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 210, 218 (Roush)), but interpretation of the statutes governing representation of state entities, like the interpretation of any statute, is reviewed de novo (Chatsky & Assocs. v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 873, 876 (Chatsky & Assocs).) In either case, we review the trial court’s ruling, not its reasoning. (People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555, 582.) A. Statutory authority By statute, the Attorney General is generally designated as the person who will represent the state and most state agencies in court. With regard to the state, sections 12511 and 12512 provide, in pertinent part, that “the Attorney General has charge, as attorney, of all legal matters in which the State is interested” (§ 12511) and “shall . . . prosecute or defend all causes to which the State, or any State officer is a party in his or her…