U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner ruled that Downtown L.A. Law Group in California will not be disqualified from representing their plaintiff even though one of the current attorneys in California working at the firm used to work for the defendant.

Anthony Werbin, a lawyer at Downtown L.A. Law Group in California, previously worked at Manning & Kass, Elrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP; here, he worked over 1,000 hours on Costco’s legal matters, specifically he defended Costco in casos de lesiones personales (al menos un caso) and served as a trial counsel on the company’s behalf. Werbin also attended a conference designed for the company’s California defense attorneys in California, in which they covered/discussed litigation and defense tools and strategies for personal injury cases.

Because of this, there was a motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s counsel. Costco’s attorneys in California argued that during Werbin’s time as an attorney for the company, Werbin “handled virtually every aspect of Costco’s personal injury lawsuits…[including] developing strategy, communicating with Costco employees [and insurance administrators]…reviewing confidential and privileged documents, preparing responses to discovery, preparing witnesses to testify at depositions and defending numerous depositions of Costco employees, and developing litigation strategy.” Based on this, Costco’s attorneys claimed that DTLA Law Group should not be allowed to represent the plaintiff – in Rodríguez contra Costco Wholesale Corporation et al. (a resbalón y caída caso).

In an opposition filing, DTLA Law Group in California pushed back against Costco. Igor Fradkin, un abogado de la firma, declaró que si el argumento de Costco fuera “aceptado en este asunto, impediría efectivamente que cualquier ex abogado defensor de seguros… trabajara como abogado de la parte demandante en el futuro. Si llevamos esto a su absurda conclusión, esencialmente mantendría a un abogado defensor de seguros en el poder”. abogado de empresas que cambian constantemente y seguir ejerciendo como abogado defensor”.”

En última instancia, el juez dictaminó que Costco no logró establecer una relación significativa entre los casos en los que Werbin representó a Costco y el caso actual. caso de lesiones personales que la ley firm is handling (it is important to note that the personal injury case against Costco is being handled by two attorneys at DTLA Law Group in California, none of which are Werbin).

Understanding the Issue in California

La cuestión aquí es un conflicto de intereses específicamente relacionado con Anthony Werbinque en su día fue abogado defensor de Costco y ahora es abogado demandante en el bufete que está demandando a la empresa. En general, cuando un abogado tiene un conflicto de intereses en un caso, entonces todo el bufete queda descalificado del caso (es decir, no pueden representar al demandante).

Of course, there are exceptions. A law firm in California can be disqualified from a case unless one of the following is true:

• El conflicto es personal y no limita en modo alguno la representación.
• El conflicto surge de la asociación del abogado con un bufete/empresa anterior, por lo que el abogado es oportunamente apartado del caso, el abogado no recibe honorarios de dicho caso, se notifica por escrito al antiguo cliente y el abogado no tuvo una participación similar en el mismo asunto en el bufete anterior.

Based on the details surrounding the judges ruling, the law firm in California wasn’t disqualified due to the latter point. Specifically, the lawyer did not participate in the same personal injury case while working with Costco because the personal injury case is a completely new case in which Werbin has never been involved.