Klemm v. Superior Court

Attorney Catherine Bailey helped her friends Gail Klemm (plaintiff) and Dale Klemm (defendant) divorce without charging fees when they could not afford attorneys. The couple consulted with Bailey and agreed on dividing assets, waiving spousal support, and sharing custody of their children. Gail also agreed to waive child support from Dale. Bailey appeared on Gail’s behalf at the dissolution hearing. The judge granted a divorce and awarded joint custody in accordance with the couple’s agreement but referred the child-support issue to the county family-support division because Gail received dependent-aid payments from the county. The division recommended that Dale pay $50 in child support monthly to the county to reimburse the dependent-aid payments to Gail. Bailey appeared on Dale’s behalf at the child-support hearing. Bailey explained that the parties had agreed as to child support so that no conflict arose between them and did not submit written consents to joint representation. But after Gail gave conflicting testimony about whether Bailey represented her and asked to speak to Bailey about it, the judge ordered that Bailey could not appear for either spouse because their interests conflicted and continued the matter for one week. At the continued hearing, another attorney appeared for Bailey, filed written consents to joint representation signed by both spouses, and asked the judge to allow Bailey to appear for both spouses, who were present in court. The consents stated that each spouse had been advised that such joint representation posed a potential conflict but that they felt the conflict was “purely technical” and requested Bailey’s representation. The judge nonetheless denied the request. The couple petitioned the California Court of Appeal for a writ to allow Bailey to represent them jointly.