Ruling by
William S. DatoLower Court
San Diego County Superior CourtLower Court Judge
Katherine A. BacalTrial court errs in disqualifying defendant's counsel based on an egregious violation of attorney-client privilege when the disclosure does not substantially and continuously effect the outcome of the case.
Court
California Courts of Appeal 4DCA/1Cite as
2019 DJDAR 179Published
Jan. 9, 2019Filing Date
Jan. 7, 2019Opinion Type
ModificationDisposition Type
Writ IssuedCITY OF SAN DIEGO,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
Respondent;
DANA HOOVER,
Real Party in Interest.
No. D073961
(San Diego County Super. Ct.
No. 37-2014-00013755-CU-OE-CTL)
California Courts of Appeal
Fourth Appellate District
Division One
Filed January 7, 2019
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING
NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed December 28, 2018 be modified as follows:
1. Throughout the opinion, insert "former" before "Rule 2-100" to read as "former Rule 2-100."
2. The language of footnote 1 on page 3 is deleted and the following language inserted in its place:
All further rule references are to the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct unless otherwise indicated. Those rules were revised and renumbered effective November 1, 2018. The substance of former Rule 2-100(A), at issue in this case, became Rule 4.2(a) of the revised Rules. We refer to "former Rule 2-100" throughout the opinion for purposes of this appeal.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
There is no change in judgment.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
