City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc.

Summary

The California Supreme Court held that a city attorney's personal conflict arising from his prior representation of a company was imputed to the entire San Francisco City Attorney's Office. Because the former representation was substantially related to the City's civil action against the company, and the conflicted attorney headed and supervised the government law office, an ethical screen was insufficient and office-wide disqualification was required.

Holdings

1. When the head of a government law office previously represented an opposing client in a substantially related matter and possesses a disqualifying personal conflict, that conflict is imputed to the entire government law office because the head's supervisory, policymaking, hiring, and firing authority prevents effective insulation of subordinate attorneys.
2. When the former attorney had a direct professional relationship with the former client concerning a legal issue closely related to the current representation, the former client need not prove that the attorney actually possesses confidential information; possession is presumed.
3. The judgment disqualifying the Office of the City Attorney of San Francisco from representing the City against Cobra and related defendants is affirmed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a former private attorney's conflict based on a substantially related successive representation is imputed to the entire government law office that the attorney heads.
2. Whether an ethical screen can prevent office-wide disqualification when the conflicted attorney is the chief executive of the government law office.
3. Whether the City Attorney's Office was properly disqualified from representing the City in this civil action.

Disposition

affirmed