Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03097/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03097-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 *E-FILED 10/26/06*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FRANCIS YEE, IRENE YEE

Plaintiffs, 

 v.

VENTUS CAPITAL SERVICES, ET AL.

Defendants. 

______________________________________________

NO. C 05-03097 (RS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISQUALIFY

INTRODUCTION

In this action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, defendant

Academy Collection Service, Inc. moves to disqualify attorney Eric Fagan from continuing to

represent plaintiffs Francis and Irene Yee, on grounds that Fagan represented the Yees in certain presuit negotiations regarding the dispute and therefore will be a material witness at trial. Pursuant to

Local Rule 7-1 (b), the Court finds this motion suitable for disposition without oral argument. For

reasons explained below, the motion will be denied.

Case 5:05-cv-03097-RS Document 106 Filed 10/26/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Whether testimony from Fagan will actually be required is not clear at this juncture, given

plaintiffs’ suggestion that certain claims may not be pursued and their offer to stipulate to certain facts.

Even if it were certain that Fagan will be testifying, however, this motion would still be denied for the

other reasons discussed herein.

2

 Furthermore, Rule 5-210 by its terms has no applicability to pre-trial proceedings and

therefore would not serve as a basis for disqualification at this stage of the case. Even if Fagan had no

associates and his clients were not willing to have him represent them at trial if also testifying, the

clients could still choose to have Fagan represent them up to trial. See L. L. Benas v. Baca, 2003 WL

21692037 (C.D.Cal. 2003) (clarifying that disqualification order only precluded attorney from acting

as advocate at trial, not from participating in pretrial proceedings).

2

DISCUSSION

 Rule 5-210 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct provides, in relevant part: “A

member [of the California Bar] shall not act as an advocate before a jury which will hear testimony

from the member unless . . . [t]he member has the informed written consent of the client.” The

commentary to the rule further explains, “Rule 5-210 is not intended to apply to circumstances in

which a lawyer in an advocate's firm will be a witness.” 

Here, Fagan demonstrates that he has obtained the Yees’ informed written consent to his

continued representation of them notwithstanding the possibility that he may be called as a witness.1

Additionally, Fagan has offered that his associate, Jeremy S. Golden, is prepared to try the case, if

necessary. Accordingly, there exists no violation of Rule 5-210 and therefore no requirement that

Fagan withdraw from representing the Yees in this action.2

The provision of Rule 5-210 permitting clients to consent to representation by an attorney

who will also be a witness was added in response to prior California precedent disqualifying counsel

in such circumstances. Compliance with the current version of the rule does not necessarily prevent

disqualification. 

“[T]he trial court under the new rule still has discretion to order withdrawal of

counsel in instances where an attorney or a member of the attorney’s law firm ought

to testify on behalf of his client. The amended rule, however, changes the emphasis

which the trial court must place upon the competing interests, in reaching its decision. 

 Under the amended rule . . ., the trial court, when balancing the several competing

interests should resolve the close case in favor of the client’s right to representation

by an attorney of his or her choice and not as in [prior precedent] in favor of complete

withdrawal of the attorney. Under the present rule, if a party is willing to accept less

effective counsel because of the attorney’s testifying, neither his opponent nor the

trial court should be able to deny this choice to the party without a convincing

Case 5:05-cv-03097-RS Document 106 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 In Colyer v. Smith, 50 F.Supp.2d 966 (C.D. Cal 1999) a disqualification motion was brought

on two separate grounds, both of which were rejected by the court. First, the moving party relied on an

alleged conflict attaching to opposing counsel by virtue of a prior and current representation of another

client. The Colyer court concluded that the moving party lacked standing to complain about that alleged

conflict. 50 F.Supp 2d at 973. While defendant’s reply brief attempts to distinguish Colyer on this

issue, it does not appear that the Yees contend defendant lacked standing to bring this motion, or that

they otherwise relied on that portion of the Colyer opinion. Rather, the Yees cited to the Colyer court’s

rejection of the second ground for disqualification urged in that case, which, like here, was an argument

that counsel would be a witness at trial. 50 F.Supp.2d at 974. The Colyer court found that there had

been an insufficient showing that counsel would in fact testify at trial, but it did allow that the motion

could be renewed should other facts develop. Id. Thus, Colyer certainly supports the Yees’ position

here, but it did not decide the question of whether an informed written consent would preclude

disqualification.

3

demonstration of detriment to the opponent or injury to the integrity of the judicial

process.”

Smith, Smith & Kring v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.App.4th 573, 579 (quoting Lyle v. Superior Court,

122 Cal.App.3d 470, 482 (1981)). 

In this instance, there has been no showing of any detriment to defendants or particular harm

to the integrity of the process that would result from Fagan’s continued representation of the Yees,

even assuming he acts both as advocate and witness at trial. Rather, the only potential harm is to the

Yees, and they have concluded that the risk of such harm is outweighed by the benefits of continuing

with the counsel of their choosing. It is not for defendants or this Court to intefere with that choice.

Finally, because this is a federal court, neither the California rules nor California precedents

are strictly controlling, but defendants have cited no federal precedent that would lead to a different

result, nor has the Court located any such case.3 The conclusion is equally sound in federal court

that litigants’ right to counsel of their own choosing, and their right to take any risk that might be

associated with using an advocate who also testifies, outweighs any interests the court or opposing

parties might have in precluding those choices, absent unusual circumstances not present here.

Case 5:05-cv-03097-RS Document 106 Filed 10/26/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

CONCLUSION

The motion to disqualify Eric Fagan is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/26/06 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03097-RS Document 106 Filed 10/26/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Steve W. Dollar nritz@eakdl.com

Eric F. Fagan efagan@efaganlaw.com, dorian@efaganlaw.com; jeremy@efaganlaw.com

Jeremy Scott Golden jeremy@efaganlaw.com, dorian@efaganlaw.com

Daniel Paul McKinnon dmckinnon@eakdl.com, pbradford@eakdl.com

John Karl Rossman rossmanj@moss-barnett.com, cred-rem@moss-barnett.com

Natalie P. Vance nvance@klinedinstlaw.com, ntooley@klinedinstlaw.com;

lwelch@klinedinstlaw.com

Dated: 10/26/06

By: /s/ BAK 

 Chambers

Case 5:05-cv-03097-RS Document 106 Filed 10/26/06 Page 5 of 5