## Facts

- Marina Beltran filed a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging Avon falsely marketed cosmetics as not tested on animals, asserting California consumer-protection and false-advertising claims.
- Plaintiff was represented by Eagan Avenatti, LLP and The X–Law Group, P.C., both small firms.
- A partner at Eagan Avenatti, Jason M. Frank, previously worked for Avon while at Paul Hastings (2001–2007) on three matters involving products liability and consumer/advertising disputes, billing over 300 hours.
- Avon asserted Frank had confidential information about Avon’s product testing, advertising practices, and litigation and business strategies obtained through his prior work (including review of confidential materials and participation in strategy discussions).
- Frank was not counsel of record in Beltran’s case; Eagan Avenatti claimed it implemented an ethical screen about two weeks after the complaint was filed, and Frank declared he had no material confidential information relevant to the new case.
- Avon moved to disqualify both plaintiff’s firms based on Frank’s former-client conflict.

## Issues

1. Whether Frank’s prior work for Avon was substantially related to the current consumer class action such that he was presumed to possess confidential information material to the adverse representation under California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310(E).
2. Whether any denial of possession of relevant confidences and the asserted ethical screen rebutted the presumption or otherwise avoided disqualification.
3. Whether Frank’s conflict required vicarious disqualification of his current firm and plaintiff’s co-counsel.

## Decision

- The court granted Avon’s motion to disqualify.
- The court found Frank had a former-client relationship with Avon and his prior matters were substantially related to the current action.
- The court held the substantial-relationship test triggered a presumption that Frank obtained material confidential information, and the evidence also supported actual access to such information.
- The court held the conflict was imputed to Eagan Avenatti and extended to X–Law as co-counsel working jointly on the case.
- The court ruled the late-implemented ethical screen was insufficient under California law to prevent imputed disqualification in this private-firm context.

## Legal Principles

- Under California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310(E), a lawyer may not accept employment adverse to a former client if the lawyer obtained confidential information material to the new engagement.
- If the prior and current representations are substantially related, the lawyer is presumed to possess confidential information material to the new matter; a general denial typically does not rebut the presumption.
- In private firms, a disqualifying former-client conflict is generally imputed to the entire firm; screening is rarely adequate to avoid firm-wide disqualification, particularly in small firms and when implemented after the adverse representation begins.
- Disqualification may extend to co-counsel where their joint work creates a meaningful risk that confidential information could be used or shape shared litigation strategy.
- Although disqualification is a severe remedy, courts apply it to protect the integrity of the judicial process and public confidence in the profession.

## Conclusion

The court disqualified plaintiff’s counsel because a partner’s prior, substantially related representation of Avon created a presumed (and supported actual) possession of material confidences, and California conflict rules required imputation to his firm and co-counsel despite a belated ethical screen.


Beltran v. Avon Prods., Inc., 867 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (C.D. Cal. 2012)