In re Charlisse C.
Decision Date | 23 April 2007 |
Docket Number | No. B194568.,B194568. |
Citation | 149 Cal.App.4th 1554,58 Cal.Rptr.3d 173 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | In re CHARLISSE C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Department of Children and Family Services, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Shadonna C., Defendant and Respondent; Children's Law Center, Objector and Appellant. |
The Children's Law Center of Los Angeles (the Center) appeals from an order of the juvenile court disqualifying the Center from representing Charlisse C. (child), a child in a dependency proceeding. The motion to disqualify was filed by child's mother, Shadonna C. (mother), age 19, a former client of the Center. The juvenile court disqualified the Center on the ground that the Center had violated the safeguards against conflicts of interest in concurrent representations approved by the Courts of Appeal in Castro v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1432, 1435-1445, 284 Cal. Rptr. 154 (Castro ) and People v. Christian (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 986, 991-1002, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 867 (Christian). This court reverses the disqualification order.
The Center is a publicly funded, nonprofit law office that represents parties in the Los Angeles County Juvenile Dependency Court. The Center is organized into three units, which are intended to function as independent law firms for conflict of interest purposes. The Center's Unit 1 (or its predecessor) represented mother when she was a foster child in the dependency system. From 2002 to 2005, Unit 2 represented child's older sibling, who was adopted by a grandparent. In this case, Unit 3 undertook to represent child when the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a juvenile dependency petition, pursuant to section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,1 concerning child. An attorney appointed to represent mother in the dependency proceeding asserted a conflict of interest, claiming that Unit 3 should be disqualified from representing child in this proceeding due to alleged breaches in ethical screens established within the Center between Units 1, 2, and 3. The alleged breaches occurred several years ago, and there is no evidence that any such breaches involved information concerning the parties in this case.
In this case involving successive representations, past breaches in the Center's ethical screens do not require disqualification of child's attorney when mother has failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility that confidential information relating to Unit 1's prior representation of mother would be shared with or be readily accessible to child's current attorney in Unit 3. Under these circumstances, knowledge of confidential information about mother need not be imputed to child's attorney.
Contrary to the test employed by the juvenile court, the issue raised by mother's motion to disqualify the Center is not whether the Center's recent administrative reorganization and the other conduct attributed to the Center and its director gave rise to the "appearance" of a conflict of interest. Nor is the issue, as seemingly considered by the juvenile court, whether the Center's reorganization and other conduct, in the abstract, strictly adhered to the specific safeguards approved by the court in Castro, supra, 232 Cal.App.3d 1432, 284 Cal.Rptr. 154.
Rather, mother's motion for disqualification raises the issue of whether, in the circumstances of this case, there is a conflict of interest that requires the disqualification of child's attorney. Unlike Castro, supra, 232 Cal.App.3d 1432, 284 Cal.Rptr. 154, and Christian, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th 986, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 867—both of which involved the concurrent representation of clients with conflicting interests—this case involves the successive representation of clients with conflicting interests. Thus, whether there is a disqualifying conflict in this case turns on whether it is reasonably likely that confidential information relating to mother's prior representation by the Center's Unit 1 would be shared with or be readily accessible to child's current attorney in the Center's Unit 3. (See Jessen v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. (2003) 111 Cal. App.4th 698, 710, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 877 (Jessen) [].) The record in this case does not support the juvenile court's conclusion that disqualification is required. Furthermore, because the juvenile court disqualified the Center based entirely on "structural" factors that bear no relation to any particular, identifiable case, affirming the juvenile court's order in this case would, in effect, require the unwarranted disqualification of the Center in virtually every case involving either the concurrent representation of multiple siblings or the successive representation of a parent or sibling and a child.2
The County of Los Angeles created the Center, formerly called Dependency Court Legal Services (DCLS), to provide legal services to parents and children in the dependency court, and specifically to provide representation when legal services are required under section 317. Effective July
1, 2005, such legal services are provided by the Center pursuant to a contract with the Administrative Offices of the Courts (the "2005 Agreement").
Prior to July 1, 2005, DCLS operated under an agreement with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (the "1990 Agreement") that required DCLS to maintain a structure that permitted up to three independent attorneys to be assigned to represent different parties in the same proceeding, without giving rise to a disqualifying conflict of interest. To the extent relevant here, the 1990 Agreement required DCLS to maintain an operating structure as follows:
The 2005 Agreement changed the Center's operating structure insofar as conflicts of interest are concerned. Section B.2 of the 2005 Agreement provides,
On July 26, 2006, the DCFS, which is not a party to this appeal, filed a juvenile dependency petition concerning child. The petition alleged that child, born in July 2006, was at substantial risk of being abused or neglected because of the 19-year-old mother's emotional and mental health problems. The petition further alleged that in January 2002, at the age of 14, mother gave birth to child's older sibling, Donna C, who had been adjudicated a court dependent and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Zamer G.
... ... The Center created independent units—referred to as CLC Unit 1, CLC Unit 2 and CLC Unit 3—to provide, in the same proceeding, legal representation to multiple clients who might have conflicts of interest. 1 In In re Charlisse C. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1554, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 173 (Charlisse ) and In re Jasmine S. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 297, 61 Cal.Rptr .3d 256 (Jasmine ), we reversed the juvenile court's orders disqualifying the Center in cases involving, respectively, the successive representation of two clients with ... ...
-
Sharp v. Next Entertainment Inc.
... ... avoid conflict-based disqualification has been limited to situations involving attorneys moving into or out of the public sector (e.g., former judge into private practice, former private attorney into public sector)."].) The California Supreme Court has recently granted review in In re Charlisse C. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1554 [58 Cal.Rptr.3d 173], review granted July 18, 2007, S152822, to address the standard to control disqualification of counsel from legal service agencies and public law firms in juvenile dependency proceedings due to successive representation of clients with ... ...
-
In re Jasmine S.
... ... In the first appeal, In re Charlisse C. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1554, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 173 ( Charlisse ), this court reversed the order disqualifying the Center in a case involving a purported conflict arising from the successive representation of two clients with adverse interests. We now consider, on essentially the same record before ... ...
-
In re Jasmine S., B194714 (Cal. App. 7/25/2007)
... ... The juvenile court deferred Lou's request pending further investigation. No one raised a conflict issue at the September 18 hearing ... The PRC was continued again to September 22, the same day as the disqualification hearing in the Charlisse case. None of the parties in this case attended the September 22 hearing — only the attorneys were present. The juvenile court approved the placement of both Jasmine and Lou with their maternal aunt. Lorson, Lou's CLC Unit 2 attorney, then informed the juvenile court that she had discovered ... ...