Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 California opinions name it 1 courts 2020–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lyle v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2024I. “ ‘A trial court’s authority to disqualify an attorney derives from its inherent power, codified at Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(5), to control the conduct of its ministerial officers and of all other persons connected with its proceedings in furtherance of justice. [Citation.] Disqualification may be ordered as a prophylactic measure against a prospective ethical violation likely to have a substantial continuing 4 effect on future proceedings.’ ” (Lopez v. Lopez (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 412 , 422 (Lopez).) Rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a “ 2024I. “ ‘A trial court’s authority to disqualify an attorney derives from its inherent power, codified at Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(5), to control the conduct of its ministerial officers and of all other persons connected with its proceedings in furtherance of justice. [Citation.] Disqualification may be ordered as a prophylactic measure against a prospective ethical violation likely to have a substantial continuing 4 effect on future proceedings.’ ” (Lopez v. Lopez (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 412 , 422 (Lopez).) Rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a “ | 1 | 2 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Shadonna C.green2 sentences2022Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1144 (SpeeDee Oil); accord, In re Charlisse C. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 145, 150 [“we conclude the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in ordering [public law office]’s disqualification and therefore abused its discretion”].) “In any event, a disqualification 16 motion involves concerns that justify careful review of the trial court’s exercise of discretion.” (SpeeDee Oil, supra, 20 Cal.4th at 1144 .) 2. 2020(City of San Diego v. Superior Court (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 457, 462, 471-472 ; but see In re Jasmine S. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 835, 843 [“‘an appearance of impropriety by itself does not support a lawyer’s disqualification’”].) “‘Generally, a trial court’s decision on a disqualification motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion.’” (In re Charlisse C. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 145, 159 .) Under this standard, the trial court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, but its factual findings are reviewed only for the existence of substantial evidence supporting them, and its “‘application of the law to | 1 | 2 |
Lopez v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2024I. “ ‘A trial court’s authority to disqualify an attorney derives from its inherent power, codified at Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(5), to control the conduct of its ministerial officers and of all other persons connected with its proceedings in furtherance of justice. [Citation.] Disqualification may be ordered as a prophylactic measure against a prospective ethical violation likely to have a substantial continuing 4 effect on future proceedings.’ ” (Lopez v. Lopez (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 412 , 422 (Lopez).) Rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a “ 2024I. “ ‘A trial court’s authority to disqualify an attorney derives from its inherent power, codified at Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(5), to control the conduct of its ministerial officers and of all other persons connected with its proceedings in furtherance of justice. [Citation.] Disqualification may be ordered as a prophylactic measure against a prospective ethical violation likely to have a substantial continuing 4 effect on future proceedings.’ ” (Lopez v. Lopez (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 412 , 422 (Lopez).) Rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a “ | 1 | 1 |
People Ex Rel. Deparment of Corporations. v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2022Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1144 (SpeeDee Oil); accord, In re Charlisse C. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 145, 150 [“we conclude the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in ordering [public law office]’s disqualification and therefore abused its discretion”].) “In any event, a disqualification 16 motion involves concerns that justify careful review of the trial court’s exercise of discretion.” (SpeeDee Oil, supra, 20 Cal.4th at 1144 .) 2. 2022Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1144 (SpeeDee Oil); accord, In re Charlisse C. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 145, 150 [“we conclude the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in ordering [public law office]’s disqualification and therefore abused its discretion”].) “In any event, a disqualification 16 motion involves concerns that justify careful review of the trial court’s exercise of discretion.” (SpeeDee Oil, supra, 20 Cal.4th at 1144 .) 2. | 1 | 1 |
Jarvis v. Jarvisgreen1 sentence2020(Jarvis v. Jarvis (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 113, 129 (Jarvis).) Disqualification may be ordered as a prophylactic measure 9 against a prospective ethical violation likely to have a substantial continuing effect on future proceedings. | 1 | 1 |
City of San Diego v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.green1 sentence2020(City of San Diego v. Superior Court (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 457, 462, 471-472 ; but see In re Jasmine S. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 835, 843 [“‘an appearance of impropriety by itself does not support a lawyer’s disqualification’”].) “‘Generally, a trial court’s decision on a disqualification motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion.’” (In re Charlisse C. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 145, 159 .) Under this standard, the trial court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, but its factual findings are reviewed only for the existence of substantial evidence supporting them, and its “‘application of the law to | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Jasmine S.green2 sentences2022Attorney Disqualification “A trial court’s authority to disqualify an attorney derives from its inherent power, codified at Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(5), to control the conduct of its ministerial officers and of all other persons connected with its proceedings in furtherance of justice. [Citation.] Disqualification may be ordered as a prophylactic measure against a prospective ethical violation likely to have a substantial continuing effect on future proceedings.” (Yim, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at 581; but see In re Jasmine S. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 835, 843 [“‘an appea 2020(City of San Diego v. Superior Court (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 457, 462, 471-472 ; but see In re Jasmine S. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 835, 843 [“‘an appearance of impropriety by itself does not support a lawyer’s disqualification’”].) “‘Generally, a trial court’s decision on a disqualification motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion.’” (In re Charlisse C. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 145, 159 .) Under this standard, the trial court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, but its factual findings are reviewed only for the existence of substantial evidence supporting them, and its “‘application of the law to | 2 | 4 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kennedy v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2025(In re Jasmine S. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 835, 843 .) The prospective ethical violation at issue here was violation of the “advocate-witness rule,” which “prohibits an attorney from acting both as an advocate and a witness in the same proceeding.” (Kennedy v. Eldridge (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1208 .) The advocate-witness rule is codified in California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3.7, which provides in relevant part: “A lawyer shall not act as an advocate in a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a witness unless: [¶] (1) the lawyer’s testimony relates to an uncontested issue or 2025(In re Jasmine S. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 835, 843 .) The prospective ethical violation at issue here was violation of the “advocate-witness rule,” which “prohibits an attorney from acting both as an advocate and a witness in the same proceeding.” (Kennedy v. Eldridge (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1208 .) The advocate-witness rule is codified in California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3.7, which provides in relevant part: “A lawyer shall not act as an advocate in a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a witness unless: [¶] (1) the lawyer’s testimony relates to an uncontested issue or | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Mfg. Co.
green
1 sentence2024(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 59 , 73–74.) Applicable here, rule 3.7 prohibits an attorney from acting as an 7 advocate in a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a witness, unless one of the following three exceptions applies: “(1) the lawyer’s testimony relates to an uncontested issue or matter; “(2) the lawyer’s testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or “(3) the lawyer has obtained informed written consent from the client.” (Rule 3.7(a).) When ruling on a motion to disqualify counsel b | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Smith, Smith & Kring v. Superior Court of Orange Cty.
green
1 sentence2024I. “ ‘A trial court’s authority to disqualify an attorney derives from its inherent power, codified at Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(5), to control the conduct of its ministerial officers and of all other persons connected with its proceedings in furtherance of justice. [Citation.] Disqualification may be ordered as a prophylactic measure against a prospective ethical violation likely to have a substantial continuing 4 effect on future proceedings.’ ” (Lopez v. Lopez (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 412 , 422 (Lopez).) Rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a “ | 1 | 2024–2024 |