Flatt v. Superior Court

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[e]ven though the simultaneous representations may have nothing in common, and there is no risk that confidences to which counsel is a party in the one case have any relation to the other matter, disqualification may nevertheless be required”
• as to a former client, “the governing test requires that the client demonstrate a ‘substantial relationship’ between the subjects of the antecedent and current representations.”
• “Indeed, in all but a few instances, the rule of disqualification in simultaneous representation cases is a per se or ‘automatic’ one.”
• even though the simultaneous representations may have nothing in common, and there is no risk that confidences from one client may be used against that client, disqualification is virtually automatic
• where attorney successively represents clients with potentially adverse interest, chief concern is confidentiality; test of disqualification is whether there is a “substantial relationship” between the subjects of those representation
• discussing requirement of informed written consent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).