Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the ruling the attorney in question is Deborah Lacombe

BC481780

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Disqualify Defendant’s Attorneys of Record, filed on 12/18/13, is GRANTED. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 128.

The parties do not dispute that Ms. Deborah Lacombe, Plaintiffs’ former counsel since March 2012 is now representing Defendant Hrayr Shahinian, M.D. in the same lawsuit. The only issue here is whether “ethical screening” is a permissible remedy to avoid vicarious disqualification of the entire firm.

Contrary to Defendant’s argument, where counsel switches sides in the same action, as Ms. Macombe has done here, vicarious disqualification of the firm is automatic, based on case authority cited by Defendant. While the court in Kirk v. First American Title Ins. Co., 183 Cal. App. 4th 776, 800 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2010), cited by Defendant, held vicarious disqualification was not “absolute,” the court acknowledged that this rule must be “tempered by the Henriksen rule that vicarious disqualification should be automatic in cases of a tainted attorney possessing actual confidential information from a representation, who switches sides in the same case.” Kirk at 800.

As the court acknowledged in Henriksen “the compelling reason for disqualification from representation is Hale’s former personal involvement on petitioner’s behalf in the identical action. Under these circumstances, the law firm representing [defendant] also must be disqualified. Henriksen v. Great American Savings & Loan, 11 Cal. App. 4th 109, 114-115 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1992).

While the court in Kirk developed an analysis for effective screening, it ultimately held that no amount of screening is effective where an attorney switches sides in the same case. Therefore, whether Defendant’s screening efforts are adequate here is irrelevant. Automatic disqualification applies. Where the “tainted attorney is actually involved in the representation of the first client, and switches sides in the same case, no amount of screening will be sufficient, and the presumption of imputed knowledge is conclusive.” Kirk v. First American Title Ins. Co., 183 Cal. App. 4th 776, 814 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2010).