|
p1604 Client confidences in an underlying action were not discoverable in a fee dispute between the firm that represented the client and the attorney who referred the client to the firm. The trial court properly dismissed the referring attorney's fraud action on the ground that the firm could not present a complete defense to the claim, but the court also properly refused to dismiss the attorney's remaining causes of action because the firm failed to demonstrate how the inability to reveal the client's confidences deprived it of due process.CitationDIETZ v MEISENHEIMER & HERRON (Lawyer Self Defense to Privilege) 177 CA4 771 [See Cal Evid Code § 911; Wells Fargo Bank v Superior Court 22 C4 201, T/AT 02/00; Bus & Prof Code §6068; Rules Prof Conduct, Rule 3-100; Cal Evid Code §§ 950-962; General Dynamics Corp. v Superior Court 7 C4 1164; Solin v O’Melveny & Myers 89 CA4 451 ; McDermott Will & Emory v Superior Court 83 CA4 378]
|
|
