Court Opinion

ID: 9609388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:26:42.951013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:30.152442
License: Public Domain

KAUS, J.
I concur in the result reached in Justice Newman’s lead opinion, although I had hoped that our opinion would find harsher language respecting the “life story” contract’s propriety as well as its *623enforceability. If we indicated not only that the contract is ethically flawed, but also that we doubt its efficacy as a vehicle for compensating counsel, the issue before us now would probably never recur.
My reason for joining in the result reached by Justice Newman’s opinion is that I do not perceive it to be the duty of trial courts to act as an arm of the State Bar Court and specifically enforce professional ethics by recusing counsel. (See dis. opn. of Justice Manuel in Comden v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 906, 919 [145 Cal.Rptr. 9, 576 P.2d 971, 5 A.L.R.4th 562].)
Although it appears to me that Maxwell has adequately waived any conflict inherent in the contract, I am under no illusion that, if convicted, he will not raise the conflict as a ground for reversal. It will have to be dealt with at that time. The notion that trial courts can prophylactically prevent attorney-client issues from being raised on appeal or in collateral proceedings is, unfortunately, Utopian.