California Supreme Court· 12/28/1994

Flatt v. Superior Court

Citations

885 P.2d 950
9 Cal. 4th 275
36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 537
94 Daily Journal DAR 18189
94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9809
1994 Cal. LEXIS 6585

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).

Judges: Arabian, Kennard

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

145 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.