This was a personal injury action. After several years of litigation, the two plaintiff’s firms engaged an attorney to work on this case who had previously worked with defense counsel on this same case. Once it was disclosed that the new attorney was working on the matter, defense counsel moved to disqualify all three sets of attorneys. The two plaintiff’s firms fired the new attorney, and the trial court granted the motion disqualifying the two initial counsel. The disqualified plaintiff’s counsel appealed. While the appeal was pending, the case settled and the superior court action was dismissed with prejudice.
Horvitz & Levy was retained after the appeal was fully briefed to present oral argument. Upon being retained, Horvitz & Levy filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot in light of the settlement agreement and dismissal. The disqualified counsel opposed the motion contending that the appeal was not moot because its outcome may have an impact on their pending fee dispute with plaintiff’s new counsel.
The Court of Appeal issued an opinion granting the motion to dismiss as moot. Adopting Horvitz & Levy’s suggestion, the Court of Appeal indicated in the opinion that the trial court’s ruling and its opinion should have no collateral estoppel effect on the pending fee dispute because the Court of Appeal was not addressing the merits of the disqualification ruling.
View Opinion 
