Beltran v. Avon Products, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83060, 2012 WL 2108667, 867 F.Supp.2d 1068 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California law, an attorney's conflict of interest arising from successive representation of adverse clients in substantially related matters is imputed to the attorney's entire firm, requiring vicarious disqualification that cannot be cured by an ethical wall and may extend to associated co-counsel.
Facts:
- Jason M. Frank was an attorney at the law firm Paul Hastings from 2001 to 2007.
- While at Paul Hastings, Frank represented Avon Products, Inc. in three lawsuits: a products liability action and two consumer class actions.
- Frank's work for Avon totaled over 300 hours and involved matters concerning product testing, marketing, and class action defense strategies.
- In 2009, Frank left Paul Hastings and became a partner at the law firm Eagan Avenatti.
- Marina Beltran, represented by Eagan Avenatti and the X-Law Group, filed a putative class action lawsuit against Avon.
- The lawsuit alleged that Avon defrauded consumers by falsely advertising its products as not being tested on animals.
Procedural Posture:
- Marina Beltran filed a nationwide putative class action against Avon Products, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
- Avon Products, Inc. filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel, the law firms of Eagan Avenatti and the X-Law Group.
- The basis for the motion was that Jason M. Frank, a partner at Eagan Avenatti, had a conflict of interest due to his prior representation of Avon while he was an attorney at Avon's current counsel, Paul Hastings.
- The court held a hearing on the motion to disqualify.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310(E), must a plaintiff's law firm and its co-counsel be disqualified from a class action against a defendant when a partner at the firm previously represented that same defendant in substantially related matters while at his former firm?
Opinions:
Majority - Carney, J.
Yes. A plaintiff's law firm and its co-counsel must be disqualified where a partner previously represented the defendant in substantially related matters. The court found two independent grounds for disqualification. First, Mr. Frank had actual possession of material, confidential information regarding Avon's product testing, business practices, and litigation strategies, gained from his 336 hours of work on prior Avon cases. The court found Mr. Frank’s declaration minimizing his role to be 'implausible' and 'belied by his time entries.' Second, Mr. Frank's possession of confidential information is presumed under the 'substantial relationship' test because the prior matters (involving product testing and false advertising class actions) share factual and legal similarities with the present case. This conflict is imputed to his entire firm, Eagan Avenatti. The firm's attempt to erect an 'ethical wall' was both legally insufficient under California precedent for private attorneys and untimely. The disqualification extends to co-counsel, the X-Law Group, to prevent circumvention of the rule and to protect the appearance of fairness in the proceedings.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the stringency of California's rules on imputed disqualification in cases of successive representation. It demonstrates that courts will scrutinize objective evidence, like billing records, over an attorney's subjective declarations to determine the extent of prior involvement. The ruling affirms that 'ethical walls' are generally not a permissible remedy to cure a private attorney's conflict of interest in California, solidifying a firm-wide disqualification rule. Furthermore, it extends this vicarious disqualification to associated co-counsel, showing that a conflict in one firm can taint the entire legal team if they have collaborated closely from the case's inception.
