City National Bank v. Adams

In City National Bank v. Adams (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 315, Division Seven of this court discussed application of Rule 3-310(E) in the context of a motion to disqualify an attorney for undertaking successive representation of adverse interests. The court stated: "Our analysis of the case law involving successive representation of clients leads us to three conclusions that guide resolution of this case. First, if the nature of the representation is such that confidences could have been exchanged between the lawyer and the client, courts will conclusively presume they were exchanged, and disqualification will be required. Second, there is a limited exception to this conclusive presumption in the rare instance where the lawyer can show that there was no opportunity for confidential information to be divulged. Third, the limited exception is not available when the lawyer's former and current employment are on opposite sides of the very same matter or the current matter involves the work the lawyer performed for the former client. When the lawyer switches sides in an ongoing dispute such as the one between the parties in this case, the nature of the former representation will always be such that the exchange of relevant confidences must be presumed. " ( City National Bank v. Adams, supra, at pp. 327-328.)