judicial process bar in California

2023With respect to petitioners’ complaint that the court issued “boilerplate” orders, it is well settled that a trial court has “inherent power to exercise reasonable control over litigation pending before it ‘ “in order to ensure the orderly administration of justice.” ’ (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953 , 967 . . . ; see §§ 128, subd. (a)(3), 187.) These inherent powers primarily encompass ‘procedural matters, typically to control the court’s own process, proceedings and orders,’ or to create ‘workable means’ to enforce statutory rights.” (Carlsbad Police Officers Assn.

2023With respect to petitioners’ complaint that the court issued “boilerplate” orders, it is well settled that a trial court has “inherent power to exercise reasonable control over litigation pending before it ‘ “in order to ensure the orderly administration of justice.” ’ (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953 , 967 . . . ; see §§ 128, subd. (a)(3), 187.) These inherent powers primarily encompass ‘procedural matters, typically to control the court’s own process, proceedings and orders,’ or to create ‘workable means’ to enforce statutory rights.” (Carlsbad Police Officers Assn.

2014As to the due process claim, the Supreme Court stated that the “defendant availed himself of the judicial process to challenge his conviction and sentence by appeal and collateral review.” (Id. at p. 415.) The McDowell court cited with approval White v. Johnson (5th Cir. 1996) 79 F.3d 432 , noting that the case arose in the context of a cruel and unusual punishment claim.

2012(Loud Hawk, at p. 313, citing Ewell, supra, 383 U.S. at p. 121 .) Here, defendant availed himself of the judicial process to challenge his conviction and sentence by appeal and collateral review. “ ‘Having sought the aid of the judicial process and realizing the deliberateness that a court employs in reaching a decision, the defendant[] [is] not now able to criticize the very process which [he] so frequently called upon.’ ” (Loud Hawk, supra, 474 U.S. at pp. 316-317, quoting U.S. v. Auerbach (5th Cir. 1969) 420 F.2d 921, 924 .) Although the holding in White v. Johnson, supra, 79 F.3d 432 , was

2012(Loud Hawk, at p. 313, citing Ewell, supra, 383 U.S. at p. 121 .) Here, defendant availed himself of the judicial process to challenge his conviction and sentence by appeal and collateral review. “ ‘Having sought the aid of the judicial process and realizing the deliberateness that a court employs in reaching a decision, the defendant[] [is] not now able to criticize the very process which [he] so frequently called upon.’ ” (Loud Hawk, supra, 474 U.S. at pp. 316-317, quoting U.S. v. Auerbach (5th Cir. 1969) 420 F.2d 921, 924 .) Although the holding in White v. Johnson, supra, 79 F.3d 432 , was

2012(Loud Hawk, at p. 313, citing Ewell, supra, 383 U.S. at p. 121 .) Here, defendant availed himself of the judicial process to challenge his conviction and sentence by appeal and collateral review. “ ‘Having sought the aid of the judicial process and realizing the deliberateness that a court employs in reaching a decision, the defendant[] [is] not now able to criticize the very process which [he] so frequently called upon.’ ” (Loud Hawk, supra, 474 U.S. at pp. 316-317, quoting U.S. v. Auerbach (5th Cir. 1969) 420 F.2d 921, 924 .) Although the holding in White v. Johnson, supra, 79 F.3d 432 , was

2007Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc., supra, 20 Gal.4th at pp. 1145-1146, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 816 , 980 P.2d 371 ; Flatt v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 283-284, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 .) A court is required to protect the public's perception of the judicial process and bar's integrity but also the client's right to ethical representation of counsel. ( City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 846 , 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 771 , 135 P.3d 20 ; People ex rel.

2007Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc., supra, 20 Gal.4th at pp. 1145-1146, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 816 , 980 P.2d 371 ; Flatt v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 283-284, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 .) A court is required to protect the public's perception of the judicial process and bar's integrity but also the client's right to ethical representation of counsel. ( City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 846 , 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 771 , 135 P.3d 20 ; People ex rel.

2007Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc., supra, 20 Gal.4th at pp. 1145-1146, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 816 , 980 P.2d 371 ; Flatt v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 283-284, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 .) A court is required to protect the public's perception of the judicial process and bar's integrity but also the client's right to ethical representation of counsel. ( City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 846 , 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 771 , 135 P.3d 20 ; People ex rel.

2007Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc., supra, 20 Gal.4th at pp. 1145-1146, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 816 , 980 P.2d 371 ; Flatt v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 283-284, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 .) A court is required to protect the public's perception of the judicial process and bar's integrity but also the client's right to ethical representation of counsel. ( City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 846 , 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 771 , 135 P.3d 20 ; People ex rel.

2007Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc., supra, 20 Gal.4th at pp. 1145-1146, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 816 , 980 P.2d 371 ; Flatt v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 283-284, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 .) A court is required to protect the public's perception of the judicial process and bar's integrity but also the client's right to ethical representation of counsel. ( City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 846 , 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 771 , 135 P.3d 20 ; People ex rel.

2007Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc., supra, 20 Gal.4th at pp. 1145-1146, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 816 , 980 P.2d 371 ; Flatt v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 283-284, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 .) A court is required to protect the public's perception of the judicial process and bar's integrity but also the client's right to ethical representation of counsel. ( City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 846 , 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 771 , 135 P.3d 20 ; People ex rel.

2007Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc., supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 1145-1146, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 816 , 980 P.2d 371 ; Flatt v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 283-284, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 .) A conflict of interest may be precipitated by an attorney's successive representation of clients with opposing interests. ( Flatt v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 283-284, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 ; People v. Baylis, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 1064 , 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 .) The main fiduciary obligation at risk when successive representation occurs is t

2007Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc., supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 1145-1146, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 816 , 980 P.2d 371 ; Flatt v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 283-284, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 .) A conflict of interest may be precipitated by an attorney's successive representation of clients with opposing interests. ( Flatt v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 283-284, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 ; People v. Baylis, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 1064 , 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 .) The main fiduciary obligation at risk when successive representation occurs is t