<p><b>City and </b><b>County</b><b> of </b><b>San Francisco</b><b> v. Cobra Solutions, Inc.</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>Filed </b><b>6/5/06</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF </b><b>CALIFORNIA</b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p>CITY AND COUNTY OF</p> <br /> <p>SAN FRANCISCO et al., )</p> <br /> <p> )</p> <br /> <p> <a name="LD"></a>Plaintiffs and Appellants, )</p> <br /> <p> ) S<a name="casenum"></a>126397</p> <br /> <p> v. )</p> <br /> <p> ) <a name="appealnum"></a>Ct.App. 1/5 A103479</p> <br /> <p><a name="defendent"></a>COBRA SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., )</p> <br /> <p> ) <a name="county"></a>San Francisco County</p> <br /> <p> <a name="VD"></a>Defendants and Respondents. ) <a name="supernum"></a>Super. Ct. No. 417-218</p> <br /> <p>__________________________________ )<u></u></p> <br /> <p><b>Continue from part I ………….</b></p> <br /> <p>The burdens of disqualification are heavy both for private sector and public sector clients. When an entire government law office is disqualified, the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">government inevitably incurs the added cost of retaining private counsel</a> (<i>In re Lee G. </i>(1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 17, 28), the delay such substitution entails, and in certain types of litigation it may also lose the <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">specialized expertise</a> of its in-house attorneys, hampering its <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">ability to protect the public's interest</a>. (See e.g., <i>City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, supra,</i> 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 23, fn. 1 [city attorney's office possessed specialized expertise in the law of sewer construction and maintenance].) Greater legal costs caused by hiring private sector attorneys raise the specter â€