Banning Ranch Conservancy v. Superior Court

Good Law
123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 348·193 Cal. App. 4th 903·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 316
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 22, 2011No. G044223California4,892 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*908 Opinion

Litigants have a right to be represented by counsel of their choice, particularly in substantive areas requiring particular expertise. In short, they have the right to hire the best professionals for their team. But they cannot induce their adversary’s attorney to switch sides midstream. There is a rule of automatic disqualification where counsel breaches the duty of loyalty by simultaneously representing two current clients with adverse interests.

What does it mean to be a current client? This may not be as obvious as it seems. More than five years ago, petitioner’s counsel prepared two identically worded fee agreements with real party in interest for a specific matter, which closed shortly thereafter after minimal legal work. However, the retainer agreements were open-ended, affording counsel and real party in interest the option of creating future engagements without new writings. Counsel never again represented real party in interest. Do these “framework” retainer agreements of themselves create a current attorney-client relationship between counsel and real party in interest?

We conclude the answer is no. Framework retainer agreements are not the same as…

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.