Opinion ID: 2320993
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Present Representation

Text: [¶ 4] In August 2005, Nadine contacted Attorney Alice Knapp about representing her in a divorce action. John suggested to Nadine that Knapp serve as counsel to both parties to limit costs. After Knapp met with John to show him a draft settlement agreement, John decided to hire his own counsel. He hired Spurling. Apparently believing that John did not object, Knapp continued to represent Nadine. After Nadine served John with a divorce complaint, at the initial case management conference Knapp raised the issue of her prior representation of John and of a potential conflict of interest. Knapp asked John if he would consent to her continued representation of Nadine. John did not give his consent. Knapp then informed John that if he did not consent to her continued representation of Nadine, Nadine would object to Spurling representing John. John continued to withhold his consent. Knapp then filed a motion to remove Spurling, and withdrew herself from representing Nadine. Nadine retained new counsel, who continues to represent Nadine in the present appeal. [¶ 5] The court granted Nadine's motion to remove Spurling. This appeal followed.