Quinn Emanuel to keep advising clients while awaiting appeal of its fire lawsuit disqualification

Although barred from litigating the Woolsey Fire matters, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP still plans to advise clients in related recovery efforts as the firm awaits appeal of the court order that booted it from the case.

Los Angeles County Judge William F. Highberger disqualified longtime utility defender Quinn Emanuel last month from representing plaintiffs affected by a wildfire that scorched over 96,000 acres in Los Angeles and Ventura counties in November 2018. Southern California Fire cases, JCCP 5000

Kenneth R. Chiate, a partner at Quinn Emanuel, said Friday he won't do anything to subvert Highberger's order but will continue to advise his clients while not litigating against Southern California Edison as he awaits appeal.

Procedurally, the disqualification order is unenforceable until the appeals court hands down a ruling, a risk Chiate says he's willing to take and wait for.

Chiate alluded to the appellate case URS Corp. v. Atkinson/Walsh Joint Venture, 2017 DJDAR 9497 (Cal. App. 1st Dist., Sept. 26, 2017), which holds that the enforcement of a trial court's disqualification order is automatically stayed pending the appeal but doesn't result in an automatic stay of all proceedings.

Edison did not seek to prevent Quinn from representing plaintiffs in their pursuit of insurance benefits or other matters outside of the Woolsey Fire litigation, a spokesperson for the utility confirmed Friday.

"We're accepting Edison's approval in their brief to the court, clearly offered to avoid prejudice to our clients to allow Quinn to continue representing our clients in their recovery efforts -- for example, with respect to insurance, and other matters, e.g., obtaining permits to rebuild their homes -- as long as we aren't litigating against Edison," Chiate said in an email.

Last month, former U.S. Rep. David Dreier urged Highberger to allow Quinn to remain his counsel, stating, "Trying to start all over with new counsel would make this horrible process even more difficult." The firm helped him deal with insurers and select contractors and architects to rebuild his Malibu home, according to his May 19 declaration.

Wildfire plaintiff's attorney Mike Danko, a partner at Danko Meredith who is uninvolved in the Southern California fire cases, said, "The chances of Highberger's ruling being reversed by the appeals court are nil," as "switching sides is fraught with peril."

The URS Corp. case doesn't approve, from an ethical standpoint, a disqualified lawyer from representing clients, Danko observed. It states only that the trial court's disqualification order isn't final.

There's always a risk to prejudicing clients in the event the appellate court affirms the disqualification order, Danko said. However, there's a good reason to have this case law that stays any trial court order pending appeal because often a disqualification motion is filed by opposing counsel as a tactical strategy, Danko noted.

"At the end of the day, I'm surprised [Quinn is] appealing," Danko noted. "Judge Highberger was very temperate in his ruling. He didn't call Quinn unethical. He just decided he couldn't allow this and gave them as much of a benefit of the doubt as he possibly could. By appealing, Quinn is, to so speak, playing with fire."

Highberger's order stems from three prior contacts Quinn lawyers had with defendant Edison after a December 2017 meeting during which Quinn pitched to represent the utility in the Thomas Fire, which burned in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.

After Edison hired Hueston Hennigan LLP to represent it in both fires, Quinn filed multiple lawsuits against Edison on behalf of plaintiffs.

"Though [Edison] was not required to prove that Quinn actually obtained [Edison's] confidential and privileged information, [Edison] has persuasively shown that material confidential information was provided to lawyers of Quinn," Highberger wrote June 14.

Highberger further ruled there was "significant factual overlap" as to the issues in both the Woolsey and Thomas fires which could implicate the same Edison policies that plaintiffs allege led to the start of both fires.

On the day he disqualified Quinn, the judge remarked, "The court does believe that attorney Chiate was proceeding in subjective good faith (believing that he and his Quinn colleagues had not been shown anything material in confidence,) but that does not change the outcome."

Quinn's co-counsel, Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack LLP, has been allowed to continue representing the plaintiffs in the case.