Zizzo v. Super. Ct.
In these consolidated petitions for writ of mandate, petitioners Laura Zizzo and Stacee Botsford, both detectives for the San Diego Police Department (Department), contend the superior court abused its discretion by disqualifying their attorneys, former San Diego deputy city attorneys who had previously represented Department in employment-related litigation. One of the attorneys, Carol Leimbach, had gone on to work for Department as its equal employment opportunity (EEO) program manager for an approximately five-year period, and the other, Mark Stiffler, had associated in as Leimbach's cocounsel for purposes of petitioners' present superior court law suits. In part, petitioners maintain the information obtained by Leimbach and Stiffler during their prior representation of Department was not material to petitioners' claims in the present litigation that the chief of police and real party in interest, City of San Diego (City), failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace from occurring (Gov. Code,[1] § 12940, subds. (k), (j)(1)) and City did not show sufficient similarity in factual and legal elements between the past and present representations to warrant their disqualification.
We conclude City's showing warrants attorney Leimbach's disqualification in both actions. We further conclude that attorney Stiffler is vicariously disqualified due to his association as Leimbach's cocounsel. Accordingly, we deny the writ petitions.
Comments on Zizzo v. Super. Ct.