conflict of interest claim in California

2024All other claims of ineffective assistance are more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding.” (People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009 (Mai).) “In the context of a conflict of interest claim, deficient performance is demonstrated by a showing that defense counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest ‘that affected counsel's performance—as opposed to a mere theoretical division of loyalties.’ [Citations.] ‘[I]nquiry into actual conflict [does not require] something separate and apart from adverse effect.’ [Citation.] ‘An “actual conflict,” for Sixth Amendment purposes, is

2024All other claims of ineffective assistance are more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding.” (People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009 (Mai).) “In the context of a conflict of interest claim, deficient performance is demonstrated by a showing that defense counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest ‘that affected counsel's performance—as opposed to a mere theoretical division of loyalties.’ [Citations.] ‘[I]nquiry into actual conflict [does not require] something separate and apart from adverse effect.’ [Citation.] ‘An “actual conflict,” for Sixth Amendment purposes, is

2024(People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 417 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694 .) “In the context of a conflict of interest claim, deficient performance is demonstrated by a showing that defense counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest ‘that affected counsel’s performance—as opposed to a mere theoretical division of loyalties.’ ” (Doolin, at p. 417, quoting Mickens v. Taylor (2002) 535 U.S. 162, 171 .) Determining “whether counsel’s performance was ‘adversely affected’ under the federal standard ‘requires an inquiry into whether counsel “pulled his [or her]

2023(Mickens v. Taylor (2002) 535 U.S. 162, 164, 174 [ 120 S.Ct. 1237 , 152 L.Ed.2d 291 ] (Mickens); People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1137 ; People v. Bonin (1989) 47 Cal.3d 808, 837-838 .) As summarized by our Supreme Court, Mickens “confirmed that claims of Sixth Amendment violation based on conflicts of interest are a category of ineffective assistance of counsel claims that . . . generally require a defendant to show (1) counsel’s deficient performance, and (2) a reasonable probability that, absent counsel’s deficiencies, the 29 result of the proceeding would have been different. ([Peopl

2023With few exceptions, disqualification follows automatically, regardless of whether the simultaneous representations have anything in common or present any risk that confidences obtained in one matter would be used in the other. [Citation.]” (SpeeDee Oil, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 1146–1147, italics added; see Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 285 (Flatt); Beachcomber Management Crystal Cove, LLC v. Superior Court (2017) 6 13 Cal.App.5th 1105, 1117 .) In SpeeDee Oil, the California Supreme Court set forth a clear means for determining whether a law firm is representing a client: “An

2023With few exceptions, disqualification follows automatically, regardless of whether the simultaneous representations have anything in common or present any risk that confidences obtained in one matter would be used in the other. [Citation.]” (SpeeDee Oil, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 1146–1147, italics added; see Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 285 (Flatt); Beachcomber Management Crystal Cove, LLC v. Superior Court (2017) 6 13 Cal.App.5th 1105, 1117 .) In SpeeDee Oil, the California Supreme Court set forth a clear means for determining whether a law firm is representing a client: “An

2024All other claims of ineffective assistance are more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding.” (People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009 (Mai).) “In the context of a conflict of interest claim, deficient performance is demonstrated by a showing that defense counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest ‘that affected counsel's performance—as opposed to a mere theoretical division of loyalties.’ [Citations.] ‘[I]nquiry into actual conflict [does not require] something separate and apart from adverse effect.’ [Citation.] ‘An “actual conflict,” for Sixth Amendment purposes, is

2008(People v. Cornwell (2005) 37 Cal.4th 50, 75 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 117 P.3d 622 ].) There is no allegation that Atherton possessed confidential information from either his client Bonilla or from Bonilla’s mother, Garcia, and there are no California cases holding that current representation of a prosecution witness’s relative creates a conflict of interest. 7 We therefore doubt that a conflict existed, especially where the trial *1041 court heard and accepted the explanations and viewpoints of both Atherton and the prosecutor. ( Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 1001-1002.) Assuming for discussion’

2023With few exceptions, disqualification follows automatically, regardless of whether the simultaneous representations have anything in common or present any risk that confidences obtained in one matter would be used in the other. [Citation.]” (SpeeDee Oil, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 1146–1147, italics added; see Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 285 (Flatt); Beachcomber Management Crystal Cove, LLC v. Superior Court (2017) 6 13 Cal.App.5th 1105, 1117 .) In SpeeDee Oil, the California Supreme Court set forth a clear means for determining whether a law firm is representing a client: “An

1999(Cf. Flatt, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 283 , 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 .) Therefore, we examine the relationship between Disner and Mobil, conducted through Mobil's counsel, to determine whether Disner should be deemed to have represented Mobil for purposes of a conflict of interest analysis.

2015(Thomson v. Call, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 648 .) Courts evaluating a conflict of interest claim under Government Code section 1090 must consider “(1) whether the defendant government officials or employees participated in the making of a contract in their official capacities, (2) whether the defendants had a cognizable financial interest in that contract, and (3) (if raised as an affirmative defense) whether the cognizable interest falls within any one of section 1091’s or section 1091.5’s exceptions for remote or minimal interests. [Citations.]” (Lexin, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1074 .) The brea

2015(Thomson v. Call, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 648.) Courts evaluating a conflict of interest claim under Government Code section 1090 must consider “(1) whether the defendant government officials or employees participated in the making of a contract in their official capacities, (2) whether the defendants had a cognizable financial interest in that contract, and (3) (if raised as an affirmative defense) whether the cognizable interest falls within any one of section 1091’s or section 1091.5’s exceptions for remote or minimal interests. [Citations.]” (Lexin, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1074, fn. omitted

2013Evidentiary Errors The Behrmanns contend that the trial court erred in excluding evidence that (1) Goldstein (the attorney Baker recommended) sought to obtain a conflict of interest waiver from an unrelated client in 1998; and (2) NHF later amended its application form for private charities to spell out that donors would lose "control" of their donations as well as "ownership" and "custody." Because these two exhibits do not affect our analysis, their exclusion is harmless.3 (Cf. 3 For the same reasons, the Behrmanns' post-briefing motion to strike portions of Baker's brief and their request f

2013Evidentiary Errors The Behrmanns contend that the trial court erred in excluding evidence that (1) Goldstein (the attorney Baker recommended) sought to obtain a conflict of interest waiver from an unrelated client in 1998; and (2) NHF later amended its application form for private charities to spell out that donors would lose "control" of their donations as well as "ownership" and "custody." Because these two exhibits do not affect our analysis, their exclusion is harmless.3 (Cf. 3 For the same reasons, the Behrmanns' post-briefing motion to strike portions of Baker's brief and their request f

2004Ortiz v. Los Angeles Police Relief Assn. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1312 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 670 ] (Ortiz), is cited by the City as being instructive of the proposition that “indirect and attenuated impacts of government regulation on family relationships do not violate constitutional privacy rights.” In Ortiz , the Second Appellate District upheld a conflict of interest rule of a private police benefits organization, which barred prison inmates or their spouses from employment as benefits administrators with access to confidential files regarding health and retirement claims of police officers

2004Ortiz v. Los Angeles Police Relief Assn. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1312 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 670 ] (Ortiz), is cited by the City as being instructive of the proposition that “indirect and attenuated impacts of government regulation on family relationships do not violate constitutional privacy rights.” In Ortiz , the Second Appellate District upheld a conflict of interest rule of a private police benefits organization, which barred prison inmates or their spouses from employment as benefits administrators with access to confidential files regarding health and retirement claims of police officers

2024(People v. Ng (2022) 13 Cal.5th 448, 530 [to succeed on a conflict of interest claim a defendant “must establish an actual conflict, deficient performance, and prejudice”].) DISPOSITION The trial court’s order denying Maury’s second state habeas corpus petition is affirmed. /s/ Duarte, J.

2024(People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 417 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694 .) “In the context of a conflict of interest claim, deficient performance is demonstrated by a showing that defense counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest ‘that affected counsel’s performance—as opposed to a mere theoretical division of loyalties.’ ” (Doolin, at p. 417, quoting Mickens v. Taylor (2002) 535 U.S. 162, 171 .) Determining “whether counsel’s performance was ‘adversely affected’ under the federal standard ‘requires an inquiry into whether counsel “pulled his [or her]

2024All other claims of ineffective assistance are more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding.” (People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009 (Mai).) “In the context of a conflict of interest claim, deficient performance is demonstrated by a showing that defense counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest ‘that affected counsel's performance—as opposed to a mere theoretical division of loyalties.’ [Citations.] ‘[I]nquiry into actual conflict [does not require] something separate and apart from adverse effect.’ [Citation.] ‘An “actual conflict,” for Sixth Amendment purposes, is

2021Thus, an attorney’s representation of a client while laboring under a conflict of interest in violation of his or her ethical duties does not, without more, involve protected activity. ( PrediWave, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1226-1227; Benasra v. Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1189 (Benasra); Loanvest I, LLC v. Utrecht (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 496, 504-505 (Loanvest); Chodos v. Cole (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 692, 702 (Chodos); Freeman, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at pp. 729-730, 732 (Freeman); Castleman v. Sagaser (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 481, 493 (Castleman); Sprengel v.