Conflict of Interest

CONFLICT OF INTEREST 2

The case I found involving a conflict of interest is Kennedy v. Eldridge, 201 Cal. App. 4th 1197 (2011). This was a family law case involving an unmarried couple and their child. The dispute was over paternity, child support and custody of Calvin Kennedy-Eldridge. The parties involved were the mother, Kayla Kennedy, and father, Tyler Eldridge. The attorney representing Tyler Eldridge was Richard Eldridge. Richard is Tyler’s father, which is where the question of conflict arose.
Attorney, Richard Eldridge had past client and business relations with Kennedy and her family members. Kennedy moved to disqualify Eldridge as Tyler’s attorney on the grounds he had previously represented her father in a divorce proceeding. Kennedy also claimed to have provided a declaration to Richard’s firm in connection with the divorce. Kennedy’s stepmother, whom was the adverse party in her father’s divorce was also previously employed by Eldridge’s firm and contended that he had access to confidential information to which he could potentially use against her.
Eldridge opposed the motion to disqualify on the ground that Kennedy lacked standing. He argued that because she was never Richard's client, Richard owed her no duty of loyalty or confidentiality that he would breach by representing Tyler.
The trial court rejected that reasoning, concluding that Kennedy had standing to bring the disqualification motion and that Richard's role as an advocate for Tyler and potentially as a witness in the present custody dispute compromised the integrity of the judicial process. (201 Cal. App. 4th at 1211.).The trial court also found that the child’s
CONFLICT OF INTEREST 3

best interests were not served by having his paternal grandfather represent his father, adverse to the child's mother.
Richard Eldridge appealed, arguing that Kennedy was not a former client of his and therefore lacked standing to challenge his representation of Tyler. He argued that he had not gained any confidential information about Kennedy when his firm represented her father; and that the trial court had misapplied the advocate-witness rule. The Court of Appeal affirmed the disqualification finding that Kennedy had standing to bring the disqualification motion, regardless of the fact that she was never a client of Eldridge or his firm.
The court of appeal ruled that absent an attorney-client relationship, a lawyer's mere exposure to the confidences of an adversary does not, alone, warrant disqualification. However, where the attorney - through prior representation or improper means - obtains information that would likely be advantageous, disqualification is proper. Even though Kennedy had never been Eldridge's client, the court held that there was a potential for confidential information to be at issue. Eldridge's firm had represented Kennedy’s father, and Kennedy had provided a declaration in his divorce proceedings. The court reasoned that by virtue of these facts, Eldridge may have acquired confidential information about Kennedy’s personal life that could be used to her detriment in the custody battle.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST 4

A family court's function is to make delicate decisions that promote the child's best interest. The court applied California rule: CAL. FAM. CODE § 3020. The court discussed and confirmed that this process could be severely disrupted in a situation where the child's grandfather might well argue for reducing the mother's time with her child, where counsel could wind up both litigating and testifying about what goes on in his household, and where Richard's Eldridge’s self-interest could skew the legal advice he gives to his own son.
The court continued in stating, “Moreover, we perceive no California-based policy reason not to apply rule 3.7 of the ABA Model Rules to this case. Decades ago, the California Supreme Court firmly embraced the ethical prohibition against an attorney taking on the dual roles of advocate and witness: “An attorney who attempts to be both advocate and witness impairs his credibility as witness and diminishes his effectiveness as advocate. More recently, our Supreme Court declared that where it becomes likely that an attorney will testify as a material witness, he should “‘resolve any doubt in favor of preserving the integrity of his testimony and against his continued participation as trial counsel.’ ”
I agree this was a conflict of interest. When an attorney represents a family member in which the dispute is family related, he or she may be tempted to testify on behalf of a client. This would imply a conflict was to potentially occur. In this dispute, it was important for justice to amount in the favor of the child’s best interest. Richard Eldridge had more than one connection to the parties in the case. Given the multiple
CONFLICT OF INTEREST 5

family entanglements, the complex interrelationships between the parties, and the ethical conflicts posed by Richard's assumption of dual roles, the court conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion and the ruling stood for the disqualification of Richard Eldridge in representing his son Tyler Eldridge in the family court matter.

Reference Page

http://campus.westlaw.com.lib.kaplan.edu/find/default.wl?cite=201+Cal.+App.+4th+1197+&rs=WLW13.10&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=004042837-2000&fn=_top&mt=CampusLaw&sv=Split
Kennedy v. Eldridge, 201 Cal. App. 4th 1197 (2011).