Civil Service Commission v. Superior Court
1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 2881, 209 Cal. Rptr. 159, 163 Cal. App.3d 70 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a public attorney advises a quasi-independent public agency on a matter as to which the agency possesses independent authority, creating a potential for litigation between the agency and the overall governmental entity, a distinct attorney-client relationship is formed. Consequently, the attorney may be disqualified from representing the larger governmental entity in litigation against that agency over the same matter, even without a showing of actual confidential information being used.
Facts:
- Ardelia McClure and William Chapman, employees of the County’s Department of Social Services, filed complaints concerning assignment and classification actions taken by the Department due to budget cutbacks.
- The Civil Service Commission of the County of San Diego (Commission) initiated investigations into these complaints.
- During the investigations, Commission members and staff consulted with the office of county counsel, including County Counsel Lloyd Harmon and Deputy County Counsel Ralph Shadwell, for legal advice.
- Deputy County Counsel Ralph Shadwell simultaneously served as the principal legal counsel for the Department of Social Services, the agency whose actions the Commission was investigating.
- Discussions between the Commission and county counsel included the extent of the Commission’s authority to remedy perceived violations of County personnel regulations, and the Commission kept county counsel informed of the investigation status and deliberations.
- Based on its investigations, the Commission ordered the reinstatement of affected employees (who had been demoted or laid off) and awarded backpay compensation.
- The County disagreed with the Commission's two rulings regarding the employee complaints.
Procedural Posture:
- Ardelia McClure and William Chapman, employees of the County's Department of Social Services, filed complaints regarding personnel actions with the Civil Service Commission.
- The Civil Service Commission (Commission) conducted investigations and subsequently issued rulings ordering employee reinstatement and backpay, which were contrary to the County's position.
- In October 1983, the County of San Diego (County) filed suit in state trial court (superior court) against the Commission, seeking judicial review of its actions through a writ of mandate.
- The County was represented by the office of county counsel in this mandate proceeding.
- The Commission obtained separate, independent counsel to represent it in the litigation.
- The Commission moved in the trial court to disqualify the county counsel, asserting a conflict of interest.
- The trial court denied the Commission's motion to disqualify county counsel, concluding that the issues were legal rather than factual and that no confidential information had been shown to have been received by county counsel.
- The Commission then sought a writ of mandate from the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, to compel the superior court to order the disqualification of county counsel.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does ethical considerations require disqualifying a county counsel from representing the County in litigation against a quasi-independent county agency (the Civil Service Commission) when the county counsel previously advised the Commission on the same matters that are now the subject of the litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiener, Acting P. J.
Yes, ethical considerations require disqualifying the county counsel from representing the County in litigation against the Civil Service Commission. The court found that the Commission functions as a “quasi-independent” county agency with independent authority, as outlined in San Diego County Charter section 904.1, which states that its decisions are final unless overturned by courts. This independent authority creates a distinct attorney-client relationship between the county counsel and the Commission when advising on matters where disputes could lead to litigation between the agency and the broader County. The court distinguished this situation from a previous case (Ward v. Superior Court) where the alleged former client was not acting in an official capacity and aligned with People ex rel. Deukmejian v. Brown, which prohibited an attorney general from suing state agencies he previously advised. Under the “substantial relationship” test, disqualification is warranted because county counsel advised the Commission on the precise matters now in litigation. Actual possession of confidential information is not required under this test; instead, it is assumed that confidences were disclosed during the prior representation on the substantially related matter. The court further noted that a policy statement (No. 9) from the County administrative manual, which purportedly allowed dual representation, was limited to disciplinary hearings and did not apply to the current investigations or subsequent litigation, nor did it constitute an informed consent due to lack of full disclosure of the conflict to the Commission.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of attorney conflict of interest rules in the public sector, particularly concerning quasi-independent governmental agencies. It establishes that a distinct attorney-client relationship can exist between a public attorney's office and a constituent agency, even within the same governmental entity, if the agency possesses sufficient independent authority such that disputes may lead to litigation. The case limits the 'one client' theory often asserted by public attorneys by applying the 'substantial relationship' test, which presumes the disclosure of confidential information without requiring proof. This ruling ensures that quasi-independent agencies receive unbiased legal advice and can pursue their statutory duties free from the potential influence or adverse representation of the overall governmental entity's legal counsel, thereby upholding the integrity and fairness of administrative processes.
