BANNING RANCH CONSERVANCY v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY











Filed 3/22/11









CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

BANNING RANCH CONSERVANCY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH et al., Real Parties in Interest.

G044223 (Super. Ct. No. 30-2010-00365758) O P I N I O N

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gail Andrea Andler, Judge. Petition granted.
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Andrew W. Schwartz, Robert S. Perlmutter, Deborah L. Miller and Erin B. Chalmers for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
David R. Hunt, City Attorney and Kyle E. Rowan, Deputy City Attorney, for Real Parties in Interest.
* * *
THE COURT:*
Litigants have a right to be represented by counsel of their choice, particularly in substantive areas requiring particular expertise. In short, they have the right to hire the best professionals for their team. But they cannot induce their adversary's attorney to switch sides midstream. There is a rule of automatic disqualification where counsel breaches the duty of loyalty by simultaneously representing two current clients with adverse interests.
What does it mean to be a current client? This may not be as obvious as it seems. More than five years ago, petitioner's counsel prepared two identically worded fee agreements with real party for a specific matter, which closed shortly thereafter after minimal legal work. However, the retainer agreements are open-ended, affording counsel and real party the option of creating future engagements without new writings. Counsel never again represented real party. Do these â€