disqualification of attorney

We invite you to review our newly-posted May 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

Militello v. VFARM 1509, 89 Cal. App. 5th 602 (2023)

Shauneen Militello brought a 22-count complaint against fellow co-owners of a cannabis manufacturing and distribution company, including Ann Lawrence.  Lawrence moved to disqualify Militello’s counsel, arguing that Militello had improperly provided to her counsel private emails between Lawrence and her husband that were sent on the company’s email network, which Militello’s attorney attempted to use

Ochoa v. Fordel, Inc., 146 Cal. App. 4th 898 (2007)

The employers in this action filed a motion to disqualify the employees’ counsel from prosecuting the action on the ground that one of their attorneys, Shelley G. Bryant, had previously been employed by a law firm representing one of the employers in the lawsuit. The Court applied the “modified substantial relationship test” and determined

Goldberg v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., 125 Cal. App. 4th 752 (2005)

Ilene Goldberg sued her former employer, Warner/Chappell Music, and her former supervisor for wrongful termination, discrimination, and retaliation for “whistle blowing,” among other things. Goldberg moved to disqualify Warner’s counsel, the law firm of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP (MS&K), on the ground that six years earlier she had consulted with an MS&K

McPhearson v. The Michaels Co., 96 Cal. App. 4th 843 (2002)

Plaintiff’s attorney in this discrimination case (John Riestenberg) had represented another employee of The Michaels Company (Kevin Harris) in a similar lawsuit against the company. As part of his settlement agreement, Harris agreed to keep the terms of the agreement confidential. When Riestenberg filed the current lawsuit against the employer, the company filed