Attorney-Related Issues Pending In California Supreme Court
USE NOTE: The information in this bulletin, including the framing of the issue presented, is taken from the California Supreme Court’s official website. Citations to the court of appeal's opinion are for informational purposes only. The grant of review automatically vacates the opinion, which cannot be cited as precedent.
Expert fees under private AG statute. May a prevailing plaintiff who is awarded attorney fees under the private attorney general statute (Cal. Civ. section 1021.5) entitled to recover expert witness fees? Olson v. Automobile Club of Southern California, formerly at 139 Cal.App 4th 552, review granted 7/26/06.
Limitations, attorney malpractice. Whether the limitations period is tolled for a legal malpractice claim, as to an attorney's former firm, while the lawyer continues to represent the client in the same subject matter at her new law firm. Beal Bank, SSB v. Arter & Hadden, S141131, formerly at 135 Cal.App.4th 643, review granted 4/19/06.
Non-profit representation, registration. (1) Must a nonprofit public benefit corporation providing legal representation and other services, to the public, register with the State Bar)? (2) If so, may a court require a nonprofit corporation that has failed to register to disgorge statutory attorney fees to which the nonprofit corporation would otherwise be entitled? Frye v. Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc., S127641, formerly at 120 Cal.App.4th 1208, mod. 121 Cal.App.4th 517c, review granted 11/10/04. OPINION ISSUED 3/9/06.
Confidential information. May plaintiffs’ attorneys and expert witnesses be disqualified as a sanction when one attorney, having inadvertently received a document (including confidential work product) prepared by defense counsel, extensively reviewed the document with the attorneys representing other plaintiffs and with plaintiffs’ expert witnesses? Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., S123808, formerly at 116 Cal.App.4th 51, review granted 6/9/04.
City attorney disqualification, ethical wall. When an elected city attorney previously represented a company that becomes a target of an investigation by the city attorney’s office, and the city attorney’s previous representation included matters related to the investigation, is the appropriate remedy to disqualify the entire city attorney’s office and require that the matter be taken over by a separate entity or attorney, or is the imposition of an “ethical screen” by the city attorney’s office, barring any participation in the matter by the elected city attorney, sufficient? City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc., S126397, formerly at 119 Cal.App.4th 304, review granted 8/25/04. OPINION ISSUED 6/5/06.
Private attorney general fees. Does the “private attorney general” fee shifting statute (CCP§ 1021.5) authorize an award of fees against nongovernmental entities that initially filed amicus briefs on behalf of defendant state agencies, and thereafter were designated real parties in interest and continued to participate in the action, when the nongovernmental entities did not create the programs challenged in the underlying action and had no authority to terminate or modify those programs? Connerly v. State Personnel Board, S125502, unpublished opinion, review granted 8/11/04. OPINION ISSUED 3/2/06.
Confidential information. May plaintiffs’ attorneys and expert witnesses be disqualified as a sanction when one attorney, having inadvertently received a document (including confidential work product) prepared by defense counsel, extensively reviewed the document with the attorneys representing other plaintiffs and with plaintiffs’ expert witnesses? Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., S123808, formerly at 116 Cal.App.4th 51, review granted 6/9/04.
City attorney disqualification, ethical wall. When an elected city attorney previously represented a company that becomes a target of an investigation by the city attorney’s office, and the city attorney’s previous representation included matters related to the investigation, is the appropriate remedy to disqualify the entire city attorney’s office and require that the matter be taken over by a separate entity or attorney, or is the imposition of an “ethical screen” by the city attorney’s office, barring any participation in the matter by the elected city attorney, sufficient? City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc., S126397, formerly at 119 Cal.App.4th 304, review granted 8/25/04. OPINION ISSUED 6/5/06.
Private attorney general fees. Does the “private attorney general” fee shifting statute (CCP§ 1021.5) authorize an award of fees against nongovernmental entities that initially filed amicus briefs on behalf of defendant state agencies, and thereafter were designated real parties in interest and continued to participate in the action, when the nongovernmental entities did not create the programs challenged in the underlying action and had no authority to terminate or modify those programs? Connerly v. State Personnel Board, S125502, unpublished opinion, review granted 8/11/04. OPINION ISSUED 3/2/06.
