‘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.
Learning After Law School
Once you’ve got your law degree, how do you keep your professional skills up to date? Share your perspective in this brief survey, and you may be eligible to win a $250 gift card.
— 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.)