THE JOHN GABBERT GALLERY - Riverside County Bar Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Minute order does not qualify as “notice of entry” so as to trigger time for appeal. Rule 2(a)(1) of the California Rules of Court requires a notice of appeal to be filed within “60 days after the superior court clerk mails the party filing the notice of appeal a document entitled ‘Notice of Entry’ of judgment or a file-stamped copy of the judgment, showing the date either was mailed.” In Sunset Millennium Associates, LLC v. Le Songe, LLC (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 256 [41 Cal.Rptr.3d 273, 2006 DJDAR 4031] [Second Dist., Div. Five], the clerk had sent plaintiff a 14-page minute order granting defendant’s special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16). On page 13 were the words, “notice of entry.” This did not trigger plaintiff’s time to file the notice of appeal. The rule is interpreted literally, and it requires that the document carry the title, “Notice of Entry.” No notice of potential legal rights after denial of class certification. After the court denied class certification, it approved a letter to be sent to the putative class members advising them they might have valid claims against defendant. The court of appeal reversed, holding that it is not the court’s role to order notification of possible legal claims and that such a communication would draw the court’s impartiality into question. (Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 122 [41 Cal.Rptr.3d 219, 2006 DJDAR 3824] [Fourth Dist., Div. Three].) Mark A. Mellor, Esq., is a partner of The Mellor Law Firm specializing in Real Estate and Business Litigation in the Inland Empire. Current Affairs by Richard Reed Vicarious Disqualification Under the rules of professional conduct, a lawyer cannot represent a client whose interests are adverse to one of the lawyer’s former or current clients in a substantially related matter. If the attorney works for a law firm that wishes to take on such a new client, that firm can isolate the infected attorney from the rest of the firm with an ethical wall, so that privileged information about one client cannot be used to benefit the new client who has adverse interests. If the infected attorney is the head of the law firm, the entire firm is forbidden from representing the new client. This is called “vicarious disqualification.” But what if the lawyer with the conflict is the city attorney? His “law firm” is the city’s legal department, and he is the head of that department. Should his entire department, then, be disqualified vicariously from representing the city against one of the city attorney’s old clients? That was the question in City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 839. The answer is “yes,” the California Supreme Court ruled on June 5, 2006. As Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote in the majority opinion: “Public perception that a city attorney and his deputies might be influenced by the city attorney's previous representation of the client, at the expense of the best interests of the city, would insidiously undermine public confidence in the integrity of municipal government and its city attorney's office.” San Francisco’s Chief Assistant City Attorney Jesse C. Smith argued that the “people of San Francisco are being doubly harmed in this case, first by being defrauded; and second by having to pay a premium for representation by outside attorneys when there are knowledgeable and experienced career deputies available who are dedicated to serving the public interest and have no confidential information in this case.” Unfortunately for attorney Smith’s argument, some cities – one in particular comes to mind – routinely outsource litigation. How does that practice defraud the citizens? The city attorney and staff are all on salary. When the city litigates, it’s prepaid. But when a city outsources litigation, the citizens must pay the hourly billing rate of the chosen law firm. On top of that, if the hapless citizen on the other end of the law suit loses, that citizen may have to help pay off the bill that the city has run up. Instead of routinely fobbing off its litigation to private firms, then, a city should outsource only when it has to: when there is a conflict of interest. And, in that case, the city should have to state the conflict for the record. This will save the taxpayers money, reduce the incentive to over-litigate, and keep the city’s legal department honest and open about its conflicts of interest. Richard Reed, a member of the Bar Publications Committee, is a sole practitioner in Riverside. Riverside Lawyer, September 2006
Introducing the John Gabbert Gallery by Judge Craig G. Riemer The third floor conference room of the RCBA building has languished for years without a name. At the general membership meeting in July, the RCBA Board dedicated that room to one of our most faithful and longest serving members, retired Justice John Gabbert. The room is now a permanent reminder of Justice Gabbert’s extraordinary record of service to his clients, to our profession, and to the community. As members of an organization and of a profession devoted to the service of others, we can have no finer example. As the dedication plaque explains: This room is dedicated to The Hon. John G. Gabbert For 40 years, he served this community in private practice and as a Deputy District Attorney, a Police Court Judge, a Judge of the Superior Court, and an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal. In addition, he has been president of innumerable community organizations, including the Riverside County Bar Association, and has served on the governing boards of many others, from the school board to the UCR Foundation. His exemplary record of public service, both on and off the bench, will never be duplicated. As courthouses symbolize the lawyers and judges who practice within them, so this gallery of courthouses from across Riverside County represents the legal community that he has helped to shape for four generations. With admiration and affection from his friends in the Riverside County Bar Association. July 28, 2006 Judge Vic Miceli, Retired, and Presiding Justice Manuel Ramirez, Court of Appeal Justice John Gabbert and David Bristow at the Court House Justices Ceremony Judge Michele Levine and Irma Asberry The gallery will be featuring a permanent collection of photographs, paintings, drawings, and other artistic images of courthouses in Riverside County. If you would like to contribute an image to be displayed, please contact the RCBA office, (951) 682-1015, or go to the bar’s website, www.riversidecountybar.com, to download the information flyer. Judge Craig G. Riemer, president of the RCBA in 2000, currently sits in the Riverside Superior Court. Retired Judge Scott Dales and his wife Dorothy Riverside Lawyer, September 2006
Page 1 and 2: September 2006 • Volume 56 Number
Page 3 and 4: Mission Statement Established in 18
Page 5 and 6: President's Message (continued from
Page 7: least for purposes of the summary j
Page 11 and 12: The Lucky Kid by Judge Dallas Holme
Page 13 and 14: John Gabbert - A Treasure of the Ri
Page 15 and 16: International Intellectual Property
Page 17 and 18: Safe and Secure: How the Government
Page 19 and 20: Electronic Data Discovery - An Over
Page 21 and 22: In Memoriam: Judge William H. Sulli
Page 23 and 24: 22 Riverside Lawyer, September 2006
Page 25 and 26: Judicial Profile: The Honorable Mer
Page 27 and 28: Immigration Consequences of Crimina
Page 29 and 30: Turning Right on the Fourth Amendme
Page 31 and 32: 30 Riverside Lawyer, September 2006
Page 33: Classified Ads Attorney Firm Seeks

THE JOHN GABBERT GALLERY - Riverside County Bar Association

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?