I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Francisco Apolinar Grande (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Jose Buadilio Morales Castillo (“Defendant”) for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision. The jury found in favor of Plaintiff and the Court entered judgment. (Min. Order, Match 17, 2023.) 

Plaintiff now moves to disqualify defense counsel Stephen A. Shapiro and his firm Law Offices of Stephen A. Shapiro (“Mr. Shapiro”) from representing Defendant at any post-judgment collection matters on the grounds that defense counsel purportedly breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with Defendant. Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. 

II. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL 

The court has inherent power to control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every manner pertaining thereto.  (CCP § 128(a)(5).)  This includes the power to disqualify counsel in appropriate cases. (In re Complex Asbestos Litig. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 572, 575; In re Marriage of Zimmerman (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 556, 562 [“Disqualification of counsel may be ordered ‘when necessary in furtherance of justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(5).)’”].)  “… The paramount concern must be to preserve public trust in the scrupulous administration of justice and the integrity of the bar. The important right to counsel of one's choice must yield to ethical considerations that affect the fundamental principles of our judicial process.” (Kirk v. First American Title Ins. Co. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 776, 791-792.)   

“Motions to disqualify counsel are especially prone to tactical abuse because disqualification imposes heavy burdens on both the clients and courts: clients are deprived of their chosen counsel, litigation costs inevitably increase and delays inevitably occur. As a result, these motions must be examined ‘carefully to ensure that literalism does not deny the parties substantial justice.’ [Citation] At the same time, we recognize that disqualification of counsel is necessary under certain circumstances, to protect the integrity of our judicial process by enforcing counsel's duties of confidentiality and loyalty. [Citations.]”  (City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 17, 23 fn. omitted.)   

In ruling on a motion to disqualify, the court should weigh: (1) the party's right to counsel of choice; (2) the attorney's interest in representing a client; (3) the financial burden on a client of change of counsel; (4) any tactical abuse underlying a disqualification motion; and (5) the principal that the fair resolution of disputes requires vigorous representation of parties by independent counsel. (Mills Land & Water Co. v. Golden West Refining Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 116, 126.)  Whether an attorney should be disqualified is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. (Henriksen v. Great American Savings & Loan (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 109, 113.) 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s dispute with defense counsel over defense counsel’s “belief that Castillo [Defendant] is judgment proof and Safeway’s refusal to pay the excess judgment” is not grounds to disqualify Mr. Shapiro from representing Defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel conjectures bad faith representation of Castillo due to this dispute over payment. Here, Defendant has the right to be represented by his counsel of choice, and there is no evidence that Defendant is not aware of his legal options, such that there has been any ethical breach or abuse for disqualification. 

Lastly, the Court declines to make any findings regarding the Judgment Debtor’s Examination scheduled for July 14, 2024 on a motion to disqualify. Defendant's request that the hearing be taken off-calendar is denied.  

III. CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Mr. Shapiro and his firm is DENIED. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 30th day of May 2024