Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

Ling's employment as a Monterey restaurant manager was terminated. Her position was classified as exempt under Industrial Wage Order 5-2001(1)(B)(1), from overtime compensation and mandated meal periods. Ling sued, seeking unpaid overtime wages, waiting time penalties, and premium pay for failure to provide meal and rest periods; she alleged unfair competition and sought attorney‘s fees and costs. An arbitrator rejected Ling’s claim that she was wrongly classified and her contention that chronic staffing shortages required her to spend time performing nonexempt hourly work. Based on nine weeks when she attended training, Ling was compensated $1,038 for missed meal periods and $7,668 in waiting time penalties. The arbitrator deemed employer the prevailing party on all but that minor issue, awarded employer $29,046 in costs and $212,685 in attorney‘s fees based on the dominant contention of erroneous classification.The court corrected and remanded. The court of appeal agreed that the arbitrator exceeded his power by awarding statutory attorney‘s fees to an employer for work performed in defeating inextricably intertwined claims, contrary to public policy embedded in the Labor Code‘s one-way fee shifting provision. The court upheld the trial court‘s remedy and subsequent order confirming an award to plaintiff of costs but not attorney‘s fees based on intervening California Supreme Court authority. View "Ling v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc." on Justia Law

In order to avoid foreclosure, Wife sold the marital home to Lawyer, who already had a junior lien on the property in the form of a family law attorney's real property lien. On appeal, Wife challenged the superior court's order disqualifying Lawyer from representing her in divorce proceedings with Husband. Husband argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disqualifying Lawyer because Lawyer violated California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-300, which prohibits lawyers from entering into unfair business agreements with their clients. The court concluded that the trial court erred in disqualifying Lawyer on Husband’s motion because Husband had no standing where he has no personal stake; regardless of Husband's standing, the court saw no continuing effect Lawyer’s alleged misconduct will have on the subsequent proceedings and concluded that no grounds otherwise support disqualifying Lawyer; and therefore, the court reversed the judgment. View "Murchison v. Murchison" on Justia Law

Leslie Costello sued her former boyfriend, Peter Buckley, seeking to collect money she allegedly loaned him during their relationship. Peter retained his brother, attorney Robert Buckley, to defend him against Leslie's lawsuit. Because Robert had previously represented Leslie in another matter, Leslie moved to disqualify Robert on the grounds that during the time that Robert had served as Leslie's attorney, Robert had learned confidential information about Leslie's relationship with Peter that could be used against her. The trial court granted Leslie's motion, and Peter appealed. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court properly granted the motion. View "Costello v. Buckley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the minority shareholder of Omega, filed suit against majority shareholder Kent Constable, his wife Karen, and Omega, alleging direct and derivative claims arising from a dispute over management of Omega and its assets. Counsel represented all defendants in the litigation. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion to disqualify Counsel from representing any of the defendants. The court concluded that the trial court did not err by disqualifying Counsel as to Omega because Counsel concurrently represented defendants in the same action where an actual conflict existed between them, and Kent alone did not have authority to consent to the conflicting representation on Omega's behalf. The court concluded that the trial court erred by disqualifying Counsel as to the Constables where Counsel's continued representation of the Constables poses no threat to Counsel's continuing duty of confidentiality to Omega. Finally, the trial court did not err by concluding defendants did not meet their burden of showing plaintiff waived his right to seek to disqualify Counsel where plaintiff's 16-month delay was not unreasonable because prejudice to defendants was not extreme. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Ontiveros v. Constable" on Justia Law

In their one-day dissolution trial, Paul was represented by his attorney. Susan was not represented by counsel. The court denied Susan’s continuance request and admitted Paul’s 22 exhibits into evidence.The court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage, declining to award spousal support to either party, dividing the couple’s property, stating that Susan waived future spousal support and that the court would not have awarded spousal support in any event because “each party was self-supporting,” and finding that Paul was entitled to a credit of $2,500 for support payments he had made to Susan in 2012 and 2013. Susan timely filed notice of appeal. Because there had been no court reporter, Susan requested a settled statement under California Rules of Court, 8.137. The court of appeal vacated; the order cannot stand because it was entered without a motion, without the required findings, and based on the false premise that Susan was responsible for the protracted nature of the proceedings on her motion. View "Mooney v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The Company was organized as a limited liability company in 2007; its sole managing member was another LLC, whose sole members were the Ngs, who controlled and managed the Company. Defendant was one of the Company’s lawyers. The Company’s stated purpose was to serve as an investment company making secured loans to real estate developers. The Managers actually created the Company to perpetrate “a fraudulent scheme” by which the Company transferred the money invested in it to another entity the Managers controlled. Defendant knew that the Managers intended to and did use the Company for this fraudulent purpose and, working with the Managers, helped the Company conceal the nature of its asset transfers. The Company was eventually rendered insolvent and its investors filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition. The bankruptcy trustee filed suit against Defendant, alleging tort claims based on Defendant’s involvement in the Company’s fraud. Defendant argued that the claims are barred by the in pari delicto doctrine. The court of appeal affirmed dismissal, finding that the in pari delicto applies to the trustee and rejecting an argument that the doctrine should not bar her claims because the wrongful acts of the Managers should not be imputed to the Company. View "Uecker v. Zentil" on Justia Law

Sheppard Mullin, J-M's former attorneys, sought recovery of attorney fees relating to litigation in which Sheppard Mullin represented J-M. Sheppard 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 a plaintiff in that case, South Tahoe. The trial court ordered the case to arbitration based on the parties’ written engagement agreement, and a panel of arbitrators found that the agreement was not illegal, denied J-M’s request for disgorgement of fees paid, and ordered J-M to pay Sheppard Mullin’s outstanding fees. The trial court confirmed the award. The court concluded that, under California law, because J-M challenged the legality of the entire agreement, the issue of illegality was for the trial court, rather than the arbitrators, to decide. The court further concluded that the undisputed facts establish that Sheppard Mullin violated the requirements of California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-310 by simultaneously representing J-M and South Tahoe. Sheppard Mullin failed to disclose the conflict to either J-M or South Tahoe, and it failed to obtain the informed written consent of either client to the conflict. The representation of both parties without informed written consent is contrary to California law and contravenes the public policy embodied in Rule 3-310. Therefore, the trial court erred by enforcing the contract between the parties and entering judgment on the arbitration award based on that contract. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. The court remanded for factual findings on the issue of disgorgement of all fees paid to Sheppard Mullin. View "Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton v. J-M Manufacturing Co." on Justia Law

Case voluntarily enrolled in a three-year, employer-sponsored educational program, agreeing, in writing that if he quit his job within 30 months of completing the program, he would reimburse his employer, UPI, a prorated portion of program costs. Two months after completing the program, Case went to work for another employer. He refused to reimburse UPI, which sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Case cross-complained, asserting the reimbursement agreement was unenforceable and UPI violated the Labor Code and other statutory provisions in seeking reimbursement. The trial court granted UPI summary judgment on both its complaint and Case’s cross-complaint, and subsequently granted UPI’s motion for attorney fees for defeating Case’s wage claims. The court applied the version of Labor Code section 218.5 in effect at the time of the summary judgment proceedings, rather than the version in effect at the time it awarded fees, which permits fees to a prevailing employer only when the employee’s wage claims have been brought in “bad faith.” The court of appeal affirmed summary judgment, but reversed the attorney fees award. Under California Supreme Court precedent, statutory provisions that alter the recovery of attorney fees are deemed procedural in nature and apply to pending litigation. View "USS-POSCO Indus. v. Case" on Justia Law

James Kelly, as trustee of the Beverly Snodgrass Clark Inter Vivos 1999 Separate Property Trust, sued Barbara J. Orr, Joseph Holland, Gretchen Shaffer, and DLA Piper LLP (US) (Defendants) for professional negligence in relation to legal advice they provided to his predecessor trustee of the Trust. Defendants demurred on statute of limitations grounds, arguing his action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6. The trial court sustained Defendants' demurrer without leave to amend, and Kelly filed a timely notice of appeal. On review of the matter, the Court of Appeal concluded the statute of limitations was tolled under section 340.6, subdivision (a)(2), until March 22, 2013, the date Kelly alleged Defendants ceased representation of Kelly's predecessor trustee. Because Kelly filed suit on February 27, 2014, less than one year after Defendants ceased representation of the predecessor trustee, the Court of Appeal concluded Kelly's action was not time-barred. The Court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Kelly v. Orr" on Justia Law

In 2013, M’Guinness sued fellow shareholder, Johnson, for claims arising out of the operation of a small construction firm, TLC. M’Guinness also sought involuntary dissolution and appointment of a receiver. Johnson cross-complained against M’Guinness, TLC, and the third TLC shareholder. Johnson was represented by the Casas law firm. The other parties moved to disqualify the firm, claiming it had been retained by TLC as its counsel in 2006, TLC never discharged the firm; the firm never withdrew as counsel. The court denied the motion, finding the evidence insufficient to warrant automatic disqualification based upon a concurrent representation conflict and rejecting a claim of subsequent representation conflict of interest. The court of appeal reversed. The firm continued to represent TLC through the time the lawsuit was instituted. If a party moving to disqualify an attorney establishes concurrent representation, the court is required, “in all but a few instances,” to automatically disqualify the attorney without regard to whether the subject matter of the representation of one client relates to the representation of the second client. While disqualification is a drastic measure and motions to disqualify are sometimes brought for improper tactical reasons, disqualification is not “generally disfavored,” and, in this situation, was required. View "M'Guinness v. Johnson" on Justia Law