Brewster v. Mills

Background

Plaintiff Cenious Brewster moved to disqualify Meredith B. Osborn and the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office from representing defendants. A motion to disqualify seeks to remove a lawyer from a case because of an alleged conflict or professional misconduct. Brewster argued that Osborn violated ethical duties during the litigation.

The court stated that motions to disqualify receive especially strict review because they can be filed for tactical reasons. Under the court’s local rules, it applied the professional-conduct standards required of California attorneys.

Alleged Conduct

Brewster identified three alleged incidents:

- Brewster argued that Osborn improperly omitted two of his proposed witnesses from a September 2021 joint case statement. The court found that the omission was inadvertent, that Brewster’s counsel had allowed the filing to proceed, and that the court later granted a motion to supplement the statement. The trial date was also vacated, so the court found no possible prejudice from the omission. - Brewster argued that Osborn tried to intimidate his lawyer by criticizing the lawyer’s reputation, ethics, and professionalism and by expressing the view that the lawsuit was futile. The court found that Brewster offered only conclusory accusations. Osborn said she had expressed concerns about counsel’s performance, including what she viewed as a mischaracterization of Brewster’s testimony. The court concluded that Brewster had not identified an ethical duty Osborn breached. - Brewster argued that Osborn misled the court during an August 2021 hearing on defendants’ summary-judgment motion. Osborn had said that her office believed Deputy Mills had been targeted by antigay harassment by inmates. The court noted evidence from Brewster’s deposition that could support an argument that Brewster’s discomfort with Mills was partly related to Mills’s alleged sexuality. The court did not decide the details of that evidence, but found that Brewster’s motion did not show that Osborn lied to or misled the court. The court also stated that whether Mills was actually targeted by inmates was irrelevant to the summary-judgment issues.

Ruling

The court denied the motion in its entirety. It held that Brewster’s allegations did not come close to establishing ethical misconduct or a basis for removing Osborn or the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office. The court added that a motion to disqualify counsel is not an appropriate vehicle for protesting professional disagreements, blunt or uncomfortable conversations, personal disputes, or attempts to gain a tactical advantage. It reminded all counsel to act with professional courtesy and decorum.

The court also noted, without deciding the issue, that defense counsel’s opposition referred to Brewster’s conduct as a possible example of “gay panic” based on stereotypes. The court warned that this argument could create substantial prejudice at trial and advised defense counsel to proceed carefully on that point.