Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Mfg. Co.

Good Law
198 Cal. Rptr. 3d 253·2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 69·244 Cal. App. 4th 590·16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1205
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 29, 2016B256314California12,003 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Collins, J.

*596 INTRODUCTION

Appellant J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (J-M) appeals from a judgment in favor of its former attorneys, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP (Sheppard Mullin). Sheppard Mullin sought recovery of attorney fees relating to litigation in which Sheppard Mullin represented J-M. Sheppard *597 Mullin was disqualified from that litigation because, without obtaining informed consent from either client, Sheppard Mullin represented J-M, the defendant in the litigation, while simultaneously representing an adverse party in that case, South Tahoe Public Utility District (South Tahoe), in unrelated matters. J-M argued that its engagement agreement with Sheppard Mullin was unenforceable because it was illegal and it violated the public policy embodied in the California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-310 (Rule 3-310 ), 1 which bars simultaneous representation of adverse clients. J-M argued that as a result of Sheppard Mullin's violation, J-M did not owe Sheppard Mullin outstanding attorney fees and Sheppard Mullin should return to J-M all attorney fees paid pursuant to the agreement.

The trial court ordered the case to arbitration based on the parties' written…

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.