Ethics

A California Court of Appeal decision clarifies and narrows standing doctrine for motions to disqualify.  Key graf:

Attorneys who jointly represent clients in the same action owe a duty of undivided loyalty to each of their clients and are subject to disqualification if an unwaivable conflict exists arising from the joint representation.  We address whether a non-client may enforce this duty of loyalty and move to disqualify opposing counsel.  In this case, the parties seeking disqualification were not present clients, former clients, or prospective clients, and they had no prior confidential relationship with opposing counsel.  They moved to disqualify opposing counsel Graham & Associates, and Bruce N. Graham, a member of the firm (Graham), from jointly representing their adversaries, appellants Jim and Maartje Burman (the Burmans) and Ted Kipers.  The moving parties acknowledge that their motion is not based upon California law, but rather on what they refer to as a minority view in Colyer v. Smith (C.D.Cal. 1999) 50 F.Supp.2d 966, permitting a non-client to move to disqualify opposing counsel.  While the decision of a federal district court is not binding on this Court, we do not read Colyer?s minority rule as dispensing with the standing requirements.  Here, the non-client, moving parties have no legally cognizable interest in Graham?s undivided loyalty to his clients.  Therefore, the moving parties lacked standing to bring this motion to disqualify.  We reverse the disqualification order.