Costello v. Buckley
199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 891
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Leslie Costello and Peter Buckley dated; between Oct 2010–Nov 2011 Leslie loaned Peter $92,000 that she later sought to recover.
- While dating, Leslie retained Robert Buckley (Peter's brother) to represent her in an unrelated easement dispute (Aug 2011–June 2012); she paid him nearly $40,000.
- During that representation Leslie disclosed confidential details about her romantic relationship with Peter; Robert offered to withdraw after the breakup but continued through trial.
- Two years later, Leslie sued Peter for repayment; Peter retained Robert to defend and Robert served discovery including requests to establish the romantic relationship and that transfers were gifts.
- Leslie moved to disqualify Robert on the ground that he had confidential information from his prior representation that could be used against her; the trial court granted disqualification.
- Peter appealed; the court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed disqualification because Robert had obtained confidential information that could be used in Peter's defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether successive representation disqualifies counsel who previously represented the opposing party | Robert acquired confidential information about Leslie's romantic relationship with Peter that could be used against her; disqualification required | No substantial relationship between prior easement case and current collection case, so no conflict; confidential information not required to prove Leslie's claim | Disqualified: prior confidential information about the relationship could be used in defense; disqualification proper despite unrelated subject matters |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Eldridge, 201 Cal.App.4th 1197 (disqualification order reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- SpeeDee Oil Systems, Inc. v. 20 Cal.4th 1135 (attorney duties and post‑representation confidentiality obligations)
- Flatt v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.4th 275 (client confidentiality as chief fiduciary value in successive representation conflicts)
- Global Van Lines v. Superior Court, 144 Cal.App.3d 483 (presumption and proof approaches when disqualifying for successive representation)
- H.F. Ahmanson & Co. v. Salomon Bros., 229 Cal.App.3d 1445 (former client may seek disqualification by showing possession of confidential information)
- Jessen v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co., 111 Cal.App.4th 698 (courts will protect client expectations of loyalty and confidentiality)
- Wutchumna Water Co. v. Bailey, 216 Cal. 564 (attorney must not use knowledge from prior representation to disadvantage former client)
- People ex rel. Deukmejian v. Brown, 29 Cal.3d 150 (post‑representation confidentiality duties)
- Kraus v. Davis, 6 Cal.App.3d 484 (attorney barred from accepting adverse employment when prior confidences may be relevant)