Khani v. Ford Motor Co.
California Court of Appeal
215 Cal. App. 4th 916 (2013)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
From June 2004 to July 2007, attorney Payam Shahian worked for the law firm Bowman and Brooke (Bowman), which served as the corporate counsel for Ford Motor Company (Ford) (defendant). During Shahian’s tenure at Bowman, he worked on over 150 cases for Ford, including cases falling under the California Lemon Law, a law protecting consumers in sales of defective vehicles. In 2011, Shahian was working for Strategic Legal Practices and was hired by Behnam Khani (plaintiff) to sue Ford for defects in a 2008 Lincoln Navigator, a Ford vehicle. Ford requested that Shahian withdraw his representation of Khani, claiming that Shahian’s former representation of Ford in lemon-law cases gave him a conflict of interest. When Shahian refused, Ford filed a motion to disqualify Shahian and his law firm. Ford attached a declaration from a Bowman partner stating that while working at Bowman, Shahian was privy to confidential information regarding Ford’s defense in lemon-law cases and Ford’s general prelitigation strategies and tactics in such cases. The trial court granted the motion to disqualify, concluding that Shahian had a conflict of interest because the legal issues in all lemon-law cases are substantially similar and Shahian had confidential information regarding Ford’s approach in such cases. Shahian appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Epstein, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 918,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 1,000 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

