|
P0005 REVIEW DENIED Unless an attorney received confidential information about a client, the fact that the firm by which the attorney was employed represented that client while the attorney was employed there is not sufficient after the attorney leaves the firm to require disqualification of the attorney in a subsequent case against that client.CitationADAMS v AEROJET (Former Client) 86 CA4 1324 [See: CA RofPC 3-310; ABA Model RofPC 1.9; Rosenfeld v Superior Court 235 CA3 566; Peo v SpeeDee 20 C4 1135; Forrest v Baeza 58 CA4 65; Flatt v Superior Court 9 C4 275, T/AT 2/95; Henriksen v Great American 11 CA4 109; Global v Superior Court 144 CA3 483; Ahmanson v Salomon 229 CA3 1445]
|
|
