Opening comments by Michael G. Colantuono: California now has a non-unified bar.
Case update:
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1264 [219 Cal.Rptr.3d 674]: did the Court of Appeal effectively over-rule the Supreme Court of California's holding in Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282 [212 Cal.Rptr.3d 107]? The high court introduced some novel concepts involving assertions of attorney client privilege and appeared to require courts weighing assertions of ACP to review materials in camera -- a process that in California had never been allowed. The high court also appeared to created the "heartland of the privilege" doctrine out of whole cloth. On remand, the Court of Appeal protected the ACP in the old-fashioned way. (To be clear: the pointed summary of the high court's opinion reflects my criticism of that ruling.)
Tucker & Ellis v. Sup. Crt. (Nelson) (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1233 [220 Cal.Rptr.3d 382]. Work product belongs not to the individual lawyer but rather to the law firm where that lawyer worked.
California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund v. Superior Court (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1065 [228 Cal.Rptr.3d 546]: under some unusual facts, a screen was used to prevent what appeared to be a side-switching DQ.
Flake v. Neumiller & Beardslee (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 223 [215 Cal.Rptr.3d 277]: The statute of limitations began to run when the firm appeared to end the representation by correspondence and by filing a motion to withdraw -- and not as of the date that the motion to withdraw was formally granted. Will this ruling cause mischief down the road?