New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Disqualification — May a Party Who Is Not a Current or Former Client Move to Disqualify on Conflict-of-Interest Grounds? Circuit Split

Download PDF

IMCO, LLC v. Ford, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124535 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2011):

A complaining party who files a motion to disqualify an attorney must first have standing to do so. Blue Water Sunset, LLC v. Markowitz, 195 Cal. App. 4th 477, 486 (2011). The circuits are split on the issue of whether an attorney can be disqualified on the grounds of a conflict of interest by a party who is not a current or former client.

1. The Circuit Split.

The general rule adopted in the Fifth, Third, and Eighth Circuits is that an attorney cannot be disqualified unless a current or former client moves for disqualification. See In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litig., 530 F.2d 83, 88 (5th Cir. 1976) (stating the general rule that only a former client has standing to disqualify an attorney); In re Corn Derivatives Antitrust Litig., 748 F.2d 157, 161 (3d Cir. 1984) (adopting the general rule from Yarn Processing); O'Connor v. Jones, 946 F.2d 1395, 1400-01 (8th Cir. 1991) (a movant who is not a current or former client has not demonstrated "injury in fact").

Two circuits have adopted a minority view, finding non-clients to have standing to disqualify based on an ethical violation. In the First Circuit, courts look to the Model Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires that an attorney come forward if he has knowledge of an actual or potential disciplinary violation. Kevlik v. Goldstein, 724 F.2d 844, 847 (1st Cir. 1984). Similarly, in the Fourth Circuit, any member of the bar aware of the facts justifying a disqualification of counsel is obligated to call it to the attention of the court. United States v. Clarkson, 567 F.2d 270, 271 n.1 (4th Cir. 1977).

The issue has not directly been addressed in the Ninth Circuit. In Kasza v. Browner, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit quoted the general rule from Yarn Processing. 133 F.3d 1159, 1171 (9th Cir. 1998). In Kasza, however, the issue of standing was not pressed, and the court did not analyze the issue further beyond citing Yarn Processing. Ultimately, the court concluded that even assuming the movant had standing, there was no basis for disqualification.

2. California Law.

California law follows the general rule that a party lacks standing to disqualify an attorney unless that party has a present or past attorney-client relationship with that attorney. Great Lakes Const., Inc. v. Burman, 186 Cal. App. 4th 1347, 1356 (2010). This general rule has been expanded in certain circumstances, and courts have found standing to disqualify if there was a breach of the duty of confidentiality or other fiduciary duty. Dino v. Pelayo, 145 Cal. App. 4th 347, 352 (2006). No California court, however, has found standing to disqualify absent some sort of duty -- be it attorney-client, duty of confidentiality, or other fiduciary duty.

The majority of circuits, as well as California courts, demand some sort of attorney-client or fiduciary relationship before a party can move to disqualify an attorney.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO: (1) Victim vs. Perpetrator Enterprises — (2) § 1962(b): Elements of a Violation — (3) Meaning of “Interest” and “Control” in § 1962(b) — (4) The Defendant in a § 1962(b) Action Need Not Be an Enterprise; The Victim Must Be An Enterprise — (5) Acquisition/Maintenance Injury Required (6) Aiding and Abetting Liability under RICO

Rule 11 Sanctions: Request for Bill of Particulars re Sanctions Proceeding Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — Court’s Discretion Narrows As Severity of Sanction Increases OR When It Initiates the Sanction Proceeding Itself — Particularly Strict Abuse of Discretion Standard Applied — “Rule 11 Does Not License a District Court to Sanction Any Action by an Attorney or Party That It Disapproves of” (Good Quote) — Failure to Provide Identify Specific Pleading and Detail Specific, Objectionable Conduct within that Pleading Violates Due Process — Failure to Provide Notice That Most Severe Sanction May Be Imposed Violates Due Process — Failure to Provide Notice That “Scarlett Letter Sanction” (Mandatory Circulation of Sanctions Order) Or Other Sanction That Could Leave Indelible Imprint on Career Might Be Imposed Violates Due Process — Notice That Law Firm Might Be Sanctioned Insufficient to Afford Notice to Firm Lawyer and Managing Partner That He Might Be Sanctioned — Refusal to Impose Additional Sanction Until Impact of Other Imposed Penalties (Not Sanctions) Ascertained to See Whether Sanction Needed

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: (1) Exclusion of Expert Testimony Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion Even When It Results in Summary Judgment — (2) Whether Physicians Must File 26(a)(2)(B) Report Depends on Whether They Formed Their Opinions for Litigation Or in the Course of Medical Treatment — (3) Party Seeking to Avoid Exclusion of Its Expert for Noncompliance with Rule 26 Bears Burden of Showing Harmlessness or Substantial Justification — (4) Expert Report Subject to Exclusion If It Is Conclusory and Does Not Meet the Level of Rigor Required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)

RICO: The Statute Defines Enterprise Broadly, “But That Breadth Is Not Without Limit” (Good Quote) — Enterprise Inadequately Pled Where Plaintiffs Fail to Name the Common Purpose, Explain How the Relationships Among the Defendants Allowed Them to Advance That Purpose, Or Specify the Period of Time Sufficient to Achieve That Purpose — In a Particular Case, the Pattern of Racketeering May Be Sufficient to Infer the Existence of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise, But Pattern Does Not Necessarily Establish Enterprise — A RICO Conspiracy May Exist Regardless of Whether the Substantive RICO Violation Is Consummated, But the Substantive Violation Must Be Adequately Pled

RICO: (1) Claim Accrued When Plaintiff Suffered, and Was Aware of, Her Injury — Overt Retaliation in Her Employment As A Result of Reporting Another Employee’s Sexual Misconduct — Not When a Report Confirming that Misconduct Later Became Public; (2) Inhouse Lawyer’s Conclusion No Sexual Misconduct Occurred Is a Mere Expression of a Legal Conclusion, Not Deception Warranting SOL Reprieve Due to Equitable Tolling or Fraudulent Concealment — Plaintiff Exhibited Lack of Diligence in Failing to Consult Own Counsel or Challenge Inhouse Counsel’s Conclusion; (3) Causation: Plaintiff Must Prove Her Injuries Were Directly Caused by the Predicate Acts — (4) Concealment of Report Commissioned by Employer Directly Harmed Employer (by Exposing It to Liability) and Victims of Sexual Misconduct, and Only Indirectly Harmed Plaintiff Who Suffered Retaliation in Her Employment for Reporting the Misconduct

RICO: Without Injury to Business or Property, Injury Resulting from RICO Violation Is Not Actionable under RICO — Meaning of “Property” in § 1964(c) — Meaning of “Business” in § 1964(c) — Mere “Expectancy Interests” ≠ Business or Property — Loss of NCAA Eligibility = Loss of a Status, Not Loss of Property — Pecuniary Losses (Here, Attorney’s Fees) Flowing from a Non-Cognizable Injury Are Not Recoverably via RICO

RICO: Enterprise Not Sufficiently Distinct from Defendant Where Enterprise Allegedly Consisted of the Defendant Corporation, Corporate Employees, Their Counsel and “Friends”

FRAP 38 Sanctions Should Not Lightly Be Awarded on the Ground That an Incorrect Argument Was Frivolous — “An Appeal Can Be Weak, Indeed Almost Hopeless, Without Being Frivolous” (Good Quote) — There Must Be “No Legitimate Basis for Pursuing the Appeal” (Good Quote)

Severe Emotional Distress and Trauma ≠ RICO Injury — Parents’ Voluntary Financial Support of Adult Daughter Who Was Forced to Sign Over Her Annuity in Violation of RICO Not Proximately Caused by RICO Violation — Injury Is Derivative, Not Direct (Intimation of Different Result if Financial Support Required by Law) — RICO Injury Is Requirement for Statutory Standing (12(b)(6) Issue), Not Constitutional Standing (12(b)(1) Issue)

RICO — Neither Filing a Complaint Nor Issuing a Press Release Constitutes Wire Fraud — Litigation Privilege Is Absolute and Bars All Tort Claims Other Than Malicious Prosecution — Abuse of Process Claim Barred (California Law)

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice