Opinion ID: 696141
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Recusal of Defense Counsel

Text: 16 Najera also contends that the district court erred by not recusing the defendants' counsel, Patricia Barrett. Najera had consulted with her in 1989 about possibly bringing a Title VII action against the PIA. The relevant incidents which led to the bringing of this current action, however, occurred after this consultation, when Najera was transferred to the CRC facility. Accordingly, no confidential information regarding the current action was obtained by Barrett, nor did the district court abuse its discretion by finding that no substantial relationship existed as a result of the consultation. See Trone v. Smith, 621 F.2d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 1980); see also H.F. Ahmanson & Co. v. Salomon Bros., Inc., 229 Cal. App. 3d 1445, 1452 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991); People v. Thoi, 213 Cal. App. 3d 689, 700 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). Moreover, Najera's former counsel submitted a declaration stating that his firm had contacted Barrett when he learned of Najera's prior consultation with Barrett and that he had (1) determined that her representation did not create a conflict, (2) discussed the matter with Najera who agreed that there was no conflict, and (3) informed Barrett of this conclusion. Given these circumstances, the district court did not err by denying Najera's request to recuse Barrett. See Trone, 621 F.2d at 998-99 (former client may expressly or impliedly consent to adverse representation); Trust Corp. v. America v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 701 F.2d 85, 87-88 (9th Cir. 1983) (same). 17 AFFIRMED.