Comden v. Superior Court
20 Cal.3d 906, 145 Cal. Rptr. 9, 576 P.2d 971 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court has broad discretion to disqualify a law firm when it determines a member of that firm ought to be a witness for their client at trial. This measure is intended to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and avoid the appearance of impropriety, and a client's right to counsel of choice must yield unless withdrawal would cause substantial hardship due to the firm's truly distinctive value.
Facts:
- In February 1976, Doris Day Comden and Barry Comden contracted with Doris Day Distributing Company (DDDC) for the distribution of pet products bearing Doris Day's name and likeness.
- Attorney Stanley Chernoff represented the Comdens throughout the contract negotiations.
- Disputes arose over DDDC's performance, leading the Comdens' attorney to associate Marvin Greene, a partner at the law firm Loeb and Loeb, to assist in resolving the matter in June 1976.
- During settlement discussions, Greene personally attended meetings with DDDC representatives.
- Greene allegedly heard a DDDC investor, Anthony Strammiello, state that he had received a 50 percent equity interest in the company in exchange for an investment.
- Such a transfer of interest was explicitly prohibited by the contract between the Comdens and DDDC.
- Another attorney from Loeb and Loeb observed that DDDC representatives had refused to allow an inspection of corporate books, as authorized by the contract.
Procedural Posture:
- Doris Day Comden and Barry Comden, represented by the law firm Loeb and Loeb, sued Doris Day Distributing Company (DDDC) in superior court (the trial court) for breach of contract and injunctive relief.
- During the litigation, the Comdens sought a preliminary injunction, supported by a declaration from Loeb and Loeb attorney Marvin Greene detailing his observations.
- At the hearing for the preliminary injunction, DDDC moved to disqualify the Loeb and Loeb firm as trial counsel on the grounds that Greene was a likely and necessary witness.
- The trial court granted DDDC's motion and ordered Loeb and Loeb to withdraw.
- The Comdens (petitioners) then sought a writ of mandate from the California Supreme Court to compel the trial court to vacate its disqualification order.
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 a trial court abuse its discretion by ordering a law firm to withdraw from representing a client when a member of the firm ought to be called as a witness for that client at trial, pursuant to California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 2-111(A)(4)?
Opinions:
Majority - Clark, J.
No. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by ordering a law firm to withdraw from representation when it reasonably concludes that a member of the firm ought to testify on behalf of the client. The advocate-witness rule exists to protect the integrity of the judicial process, as an attorney who testifies is more easily impeached for interest and becomes a less effective advocate. The rule is designed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, which could diminish public trust in the legal profession. A trial court must weigh factors like the significance of the testimony and the availability of other evidence, but its determination is discretionary. The 'substantial hardship' exception is narrow and applies only when a firm has 'distinctive value,' a standard not met by general inconvenience, increased costs, or the loss of rapport and preliminary legal work.
Dissenting - Manuel, J.
Yes. The trial court abused its discretion by applying a mechanical and literal interpretation of the rule without balancing the equities. The substantial right to counsel of one's choice should not be overridden without a showing of actual detriment to the opposing party or a threat to the integrity of the judicial process, neither of which was demonstrated here. The motion to disqualify is often a tactical device, and courts should scrutinize it to prevent injustice. If the concern is opposing counsel's difficulty in cross-examining a colleague, that problem exists regardless of whether the firm is disqualified. The trial court should not be in the business of enforcing rules of professional conduct—a function better left to the State Bar—especially when doing so destroys the attorney-client relationship.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a trial court's significant discretionary power to enforce the advocate-witness rule by disqualifying an entire law firm, prioritizing the integrity of the judicial process over a client's choice of counsel. It establishes a high bar for invoking the 'substantial hardship' exception, clarifying that ordinary consequences of changing lawyers, such as inconvenience and increased cost, are insufficient. The ruling forces law firms to make an early and definitive choice when a lawyer's involvement in the underlying facts makes them a potential witness, thereby shaping litigation strategy and client counseling regarding attorney participation in business negotiations.
