Caldwell v. City of San Francisco

Background

Defendants Kitt Crenshaw and City and County of San Francisco moved to disqualify James Quadra, Caldwell’s attorney. Quadra had previously represented former San Francisco police chief Earl Sanders and former police homicide inspector Napoleon Hendrix in two related cases involving John Tennison and Antoine Goff. Those cases alleged that Sanders and Hendrix withheld exculpatory evidence and pressured a witness in connection with wrongful convictions. Quadra represented Sanders and Hendrix from 2004 until the cases ended in 2009 through a stipulated consent judgment.

Quadra later appeared as Caldwell’s attorney in October 2019. In support of Caldwell’s opposition to a motion for summary judgment on his municipal-liability claim, Caldwell submitted an expert declaration that referred briefly to the Tennison and Goff cases. Defendants argued that Caldwell relied on alleged wrongdoing by Quadra’s former clients and that this created a conflict of interest requiring Quadra’s disqualification. Caldwell opposed the motion.

Legal standard

The court applied California law governing attorney disqualification. It explained that California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9 generally governs a lawyer’s representation of a new client when the lawyer previously represented a client in the same or a substantially related matter. The rule addresses materially adverse interests, confidential information, and the lawyer’s duties to former clients.

Disqualification is a serious remedy. The moving party must satisfy a heavy burden and show more than speculative concerns. When the current and former representations are not the same matter, the court examines whether they have a “substantial relationship,” including similarities in the factual situations, legal questions, and the lawyer’s involvement.

Court’s analysis

The court first held that defendants’ failure to identify the California rule they claimed Quadra violated was independently fatal to the motion. Defendants relied primarily on a decision applying former Rule 3-310(E), but that rule was no longer effective when Quadra began representing Caldwell in 2019. Defendants did not cite or analyze current Rule 1.9.

The court nevertheless considered whether the motion would succeed under the applicable standard. It found that Quadra’s representation of Caldwell did not involve the legal services he performed for Sanders and Hendrix. The court therefore examined whether the matters were substantially related.

The court concluded that defendants did not show that Quadra obtained confidential information during the earlier representation that was relevant to Caldwell’s case. Although a former deputy city attorney asserted that Quadra had access to City documents and confidential information and participated in joint defense communications, the declaration did not identify the documents or communications. The court also found that defendants did not establish that specific communications were protected by attorney-client privilege or that an implied common-interest agreement prevented waiver of that privilege.

The court reviewed three billing entries that referred to communications about case status, strategy, or settlement strategy, but found that they did not establish a confidentiality duty to San Francisco that was threatened by Quadra’s current representation. The court also noted that the earlier Tennison and Goff cases and Caldwell’s case shared only general similarities: allegations of wrongful conduct by San Francisco police officers, wrongful convictions, Black male victims, and a similar time period. The plaintiffs, individual defendants, investigators, prosecutors, crimes, and defense attorneys differed. The legal issues also differed: the earlier cases involved alleged failures to disclose exculpatory evidence and pressure on a witness, while Caldwell’s case involved alleged fabrication of evidence.

Disposition

The court held that defendants failed to satisfy their heavy burden to show that Quadra should be disqualified. It denied defendants’ motion to disqualify counsel.