Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Anna P.

*838 Opinion

INTRODUCTION

This is one of a number of appeals by the Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles (the Center or CLC), all from orders of the juvenile court disqualifying the Center from representing children in dependency proceedings because of purported conflicts of interest (conflicts). 1 We consider whether the juvenile court erred in disqualifying one of the Center’s units in a case involving the concurrent representation of two clients, siblings Jasmine S. and Lou D. (the children), with potentially adverse interests. The children were each represented by a different unit of the Center. The Center had created these units to enable it to provide, in the same proceeding, legal representation to multiple clients who might have conflicts. The juvenile court, questioning the integrity of the ethical walls between the Center’s units, based its disqualification on what it determined was an “appearance” of a conflict. We reverse the disqualification order.

We hold that, consistent with California Rules of Court, rule 5.660(c) 2 and the California Supreme Court’s decision in In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 432 , 71 P.3d 787 ], an attorney representing…

I concur in the judgment. The evidence in this matter was that in the case of In re Charlisse C. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1554 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 3d 173 ], review granted July 18, 2007, S152822. There was evidence that the Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles (the center), which was originally organized as three separate law firms, had failed to maintain the ethical walls in existence when its structure was approved by Division Three of this appellate district in Castro v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1432, 1435-1445 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 154 ]. In response to the extensive evidentiary showing of noncompliance with Castro , the juvenile court gave a tentative ruling that covers seven pages in the reporter’s transcript and discusses both violations of substance and appearance. Charlisse C. is a successive representation case where the center had previously represented the mother. (See Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 282-284 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 ]; People v. Baylis (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1064-1065 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 ].)

This case is materially different from Charlisse C. Here, the purported multiple representation involves two…