DQ Is an Equitable, Not Per Se, Standard

Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases, No. F078517 (D5 Dec. 20, 2018)

Firm represents two water districts. District 1 has been embroiled in a litigation for almost two decades. District 2—for which a Firm partner acted as outside general counsel—was originally not in that litigation. But it was eventually brought in, although it retained different counsel. For twelve years, Firm represented District 1 in the litigation and District 2 as its general counsel. The litigation resolved through a settlement that resulted in entry of judgment. A month later, District 2 terminated the GC relationship. And then six months after that, District moved to DQ Firm from representing District 1 in the litigation due to conflicts.  

He Who Represents Everyone, Represents No One.

Bridgepoint Constr. Svcs., Inc. v. Newton, No. B283239 (D2d6 Sept. 4, 2018)

This is some kind of a construction finance dispute between two companies and their various principals. It’s all one big fight over basically the same $2 million pot of money. At first, Attorney represented the whole plaintiff side. But then some inter-plaintiff adversity came up and his representation dwindled to a single individual. But Attorney still represents the Company in a related case in Arizona. 

Company moves to DQ Attorney, arguing: (a) there’s current client conflicts because Attorney both represents the Company in Arizona and is adverse to the Company in this related matter; and (b) there’s past client conflicts because, before Attorney withdrew to his individual client, his group representation made him privy to some of the Company’s confidential information regarding the dispute. Both theories are correct, and there are, apparently, no waivers in any of the retainer agreements. Which means that Attorney now doesn’t represent anyone at all.

Affirmed.