‘You cannot be serious with this sh*t.’
The Court now faces a relatively simple question. Can a single law firm represent both the victim and the victim’s alleged perpetrator at the same time and in the same litigation? The answer is clear: No. But for some reason, the lawyers at Hueston Hennigan did not see the clarity of that answer. In doing so, they may have lost sight of a bedrock of our adversary legal system: the duty of loyalty.
Hennigan’s attempt to cabin himself as only Randall’s ‘criminal’ attorney fails. Lawyers have a duty of loyalty to their clients. Period. That duty of loyalty doesn’t end at the civil/criminal divide. This Court will not tolerate making a mockery of the ethical rules at trial by allowing HH cross examining [sic] its own client.
Take Control Of Your Firm’s Finances With Tools Built For Success
Position your firm for long-term growth with better financial visibility and control. Learn how to track performance, manage spending, and plan strategically—download the full e-book now.
— Judge Andrew J. Guilford of the Central District of California, issuing a stern benchslap in a preliminary ruling where he disqualified litigation boutique Hueston Hennigan from State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Drobot, a multimillion-dollar healthcare fraud case.
Name partner John Hueston represents the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) on claims that it was defrauded of millions of dollars in a kickback scheme, while name partner Brian Hennigan represents Paul Randall, who is accused of participating in a scheme to defraud SCIF. Judge Guilford said the firm’s conflict was “so egregious that it is unwaivable.”
(The final ruling has not yet been posted online.)