DAYCO FUNDING CORPORATION VS. ISSAC NORMAN

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC122089    Hearing Date: February 27, 2020    Dept: P

Dayco Funding Corporation v. Isaac Norman, Case No. SC122089

Hearing Date: February 27, 2020

Attorney Leichter’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Kevin J. Leichter filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Isaac Norman. Based

on an attached declaration, Leichter seeks to have the court find no conflict, deny the motion, and allow him to continue his representation. Leichter’s current law partner, Larry Ecoff, previously represented plaintiff Dayco Funding Corp. and its principal H. Sean Dayani in unrelated matters. Leichter states plaintiff has not waived any potential conflict, so he asks the court to determine whether Ecoff’s prior representation of an adverse party requires his withdrawal.

An attorney’s conflict is imputed to the law firm as a whole. City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 839, 847. In California, simultaneous representation of two clients with adverse interests creates a per se conflict of interest, justifying automatic disqualification. Blue Water Sunset LLC v. Markowitz (2011) 192 Cal.App.4^th 477, 487. Simultaneous representation is disqualifying, regardless of whether the simultaneous representations are related. People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1147. The burden is on the party seeking disqualification. Shen v. Miller (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 48, 56.

Leichter argues Ecofff’s representation of Dayco was in the past and is unrelated to the current action. Plaintiffs argue Ecoff still represents Dayco, creating a current conflict of interest imputed by law to Leichter. The reply argues plaintiffs show no evidence proving the existence of an existing attorney-client relationship.

Dayani’s declaration states Ecoff represents him personally, as well as Dayco, and he contacted Ecoff “numerous times regarding legal advice for myself, my family and our various businesses and continue[s] to do so.” Dayani Decl. at ¶¶4-6. Though Leichter argues the declaration is ambiguous, it states Ecoff continues to provide legal advice to Dayani regarding Dayco. This establishes an attorney-client relationship between Ecoff and Dayani that is attributable to Leichter. Plaintiffs carry the burden to show concurrent representation and an existing conflict of interest. GRANTED.