2013-00153355-CL-FR

Prakash Narayan vs. Rabindra Prasad

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Excuse Attorney of Record Due to Conflict of Interest

Filed By: Narayan, Prakash

Self-represented Plaintiff Prakash Narayan’s “motion to excuse attorney of records
[sic] due to conflict of interest” is denied.
A trial court’s authority to disqualify an attorney derives from the power inherent in
every court ‘[t]o control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers,
and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it,
in every matter pertaining thereto. (People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee
Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1145.) It has been stated that “[a]
motion to disqualify a party’s counsel may implicate several important interests.
Consequently, judges must examine these motions carefully to ensure that literalism
does not deny the parties substantial justice. Depending on the circumstances, a
disqualification motion may involve such considerations as a client’s right to chosen
counsel, an attorney’s interest in representing a client, the financial burden on a client
to replace disqualified counsel, and the possibility that tactical abuse underlies the
disqualification motion.” (Id. at pp. 1144-1145.) The paramount concern must be to
preserve public trust in the scrupulous administration of justice and the integrity of the
bar. The important right to counsel of one’s choice must yield to ethical considerations
that affect the fundamental principles of our judicial process.” (Id. at p. 1145; see also
Kirk v. First American Title Insurance (2010) 183 Cal App 4th 776, 791.) While these
standards are oft-repeated and express the general considerations that bear on a
motion to disqualify counsel, their application necessarily occurs within the context of
the specific facts of each case. It is rarely productive to generalize, because the rules
pertaining to attorney disqualification differ depending on the factual circumstances of
each specific case.

As best the Court can determine, Plaintiff’s two page motion seeks to disqualify
defense counsel on the basis that Plaintiff was referred to defense counsel well prior to
the instant action being filed and had multiple telephone conversations with defense
counsel. Apparently Plaintiff is arguing that an attorney-client relationship was formed
which precludes Defendant’s counsel from representing Defendant in this action. The
motion fails to cite any legal authority applied to pertinent facts, or for that matter,
present any coherent argument. In any event, Plaintiff has failed to establish any
conflict of interest which would require Defendant’s counsel to be disqualified from this
matter.

Generally, “before the disqualification of an attorney is proper, the complaining party
must have or must have had an attorney-client relationship with that attorney.” (Great
th
Lakes Construction, Inc. v. Burman (2010) 186 Cal.App.4 1347, 1356.) Plaintiff has
failed to show any attorney-client relationship was ever created with Defendant’s
counsel. As seen from Defendant’s counsel’s declaration, Plaintiff was referred to him
for an automobile accident matter a few years ago and while he made an appointment,
he never showed up. (Crowdis Decl. ¶ 3.) Further, while Counsel telephoned Plaintiff,
he never got through and Plaintiff never returned his calls. (Id. ¶ 4.) Counsel has had
no other contact with Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 5.) Given Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate the
existence of an attorney-client relationship with Defendant’s counsel, Plaintiff has no
basis to bring a motion to disqualify. The motion is denied.

Plaintiff failed to provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by
Local Rule 1.06(D) and also provides the incorrect department and time for the
hearing. This matter has been assigned to Department 53 for law and motion
purposes. Law and motion matters are heard at 2 p.m. in Department 53. Plaintiff is
ordered to notify Defendant’s counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and
the correct department and time for the hearing and to be available at the hearing and
to be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event Defendant’s
counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).