Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co.
California Court of Appeal
244 Cal. App. 4th 590, 198 Cal. Rptr. 3d 253 (2016)
FACTS: The South Tahoe Utility District (South Tahoe) retained the law firm Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP (plaintiff) for occasional, as-needed labor and employment work beginning in 2002. In 2010, J-M Manufacturing Co. (defendant) retained the firm to represent it in a qui tam action. The firm ran a conflicts check, which revealed that South Tahoe had intervened as a real party in interest in the qui tam action, presenting a conflict of interest. The firm’s counsel analyzed the broad advance conflict waiver in South Tahoe’s engagement agreement, found that the firm had done no work for South Tahoe in the preceding five months, and did not disclose the conflict to either client. Instead, the firm entered an engagement agreement with J-M containing a similar conflict waiver purportedly allowing the firm to undertake representations of adverse current and future clients, provided the matters were not substantially related and the firm maintained confidentiality. The firm’s attorneys claimed they reviewed that waiver with a J-M representative, but the representative denied that, stating instead that the firm’s attorneys assured her it had no conflicts representing J-M. The firm represented J-M in the qui tam action for the next 16 months, billing nearly $3.8 million for some 10,000 hours. Meanwhile, the firm performed an additional 12 hours of labor and employment work for South Tahoe. The trial court found the waiver provision ineffective because J-M did not give fully informed consent to the conflict and disqualified the firm. The firm sued J-M for $1.3 million in outstanding fees. J-M countered demanding a refund of all fees already paid. The parties arbitrated the matter per the engagement agreement. The arbitration panel found that the firm violated the ethical rules by representing J-M without an effective conflict waiver but did so in good faith and not so egregiously as to require disgorgement of its fees. J-M appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Collins, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 724,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 724,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.