Lewis Brisbois Disqualification Affirmed in California Suits

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP can’t continue to represent clients in a family trust dispute, a California appeals court affirmed.

It owes a duty of loyalty to another client implicated in the case, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District said.

The firm’s family trust clients allege two lawyers from Bohm Wildish & Matsen LLP unduly influenced another family member, the appeals court said May 3 in an unpublished opinion But Lewis Brisbois represented Bohm Wildish in an unrelated case, and still advocates for it in related proceedings, the court said.

Disqualification was mandatory here, and the lower court didn’t err in ordering it, the court said.

The issue arose in three cases involving the Sacher Family Trust, headed by husband and wife Fred and Ruth Sacher. Fred filed a petition to be recognized as sole trustee because his wife suffered from dementia. Bohm Wildish represented Fred.

Another family member, Kenneth Sacher, contested the petition, asserting that he was Ruth’s successor as co-trustee. Kenneth also argued his good relationship with Fred changed once Bohm Wildish attorneys James G. Bohm and Gilbert Partida began to “interfere” in the business of the trust and Ruth’s care.

Fred, represented by Bohm Wildish, filed suit against Kenneth and other family members. And Kenneth, eventually represented by Lewis Brisbois, filed suit against Fred. The suits involved accusations of elder financial abuse, according to the court. Kenneth alleged that Bohm and Partida played on Fred’s vulnerabilities, escalated his paranoia, and provoked him into fighting with his family.

Fred, together with Bohm and Bohm Wildish, asked the trial court to disqualify Lewis Brisbois from representing Kenneth and his co-litigants in the trust petition action and the two elder-abuse actions. The court granted the request.

The appeals court affirmed. “Lewis Brisbois is directly attacking its own client, Bohm Wildish,” the appeals court said. It accuses Bohm Wildish “of engaging in unethical conduct that is a central part of the allegations of the clients it represents in these cases,” it said.

Both Fred and Bohm Wildish had standing to raise the issue, and the court could rely on its own authority to remedy an ethical breach, the appeals court said.

Justices Thomas M. Goethals, Richard D. Fybel, and David A. Thompson served on the panel.

Lewis Brisbois represented Kenneth Sacher and his co-litigants. Bohm Wildish and Ulwelling Law represented Fred Sacher.

The case is Sacher v. Sacher, 2019 BL 203329, Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., No. G055822, unpublished 6/3/19.