## Facts

- Jennifer Donghee Cho sued Cho Hung Bank in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
- The assigned judge, Eric E. Younger, conducted multiple settlement conferences while the case was pending.
- In those conferences, Cho’s counsel provided the judge ex parte, confidential assessments of the case, including Cho’s settlement “bottom line,” in reliance on the confidential settlement setting.
- Judge Younger retired in late 1994 and joined the law firm Graham & James as “of counsel.”
- On February 17, 1995, Graham & James substituted in as counsel for Cho Hung Bank in the same pending action.
- After learning Younger had presided over the matter, the firm instituted an internal screen (“cone of silence”) directing personnel not to discuss or involve Younger in the case.
- Cho moved to disqualify Graham & James based on Younger’s prior judicial role and exposure to confidential information; the trial court denied the motion, crediting the screen.
- Cho sought a writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal to compel disqualification.

## Issues

1. Whether a law firm must be disqualified from representing a party in a pending case when it employs, as “of counsel,” a retired judge who previously presided over that same case and received ex parte confidential settlement information from the opposing party.
2. Whether ethical screening measures can cure the conflict and avoid firm-wide disqualification in those circumstances.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted relief and issued a peremptory writ of mandate.
- The court held Graham & James must be disqualified from representing Cho Hung Bank in the action.
- The court directed the trial court to vacate its order denying disqualification and to enter a new order granting Cho’s motion.
- The court held that screening procedures were not sufficient to protect public confidence where the retired judge had received ex parte settlement confidences in the same matter.

## Legal Principles

- A former judicial officer may not later participate as an advocate in a matter in which the officer personally and substantially participated and obtained confidential information.
- Where a retired judge joins a firm appearing in the same pending matter after receiving ex parte confidential settlement information, the conflict is imputed to the firm and requires firm-wide disqualification.
- Disqualification may be required to protect the integrity of the judicial process and the appearance of fairness, even without proof that confidential information was actually used or disclosed.
- Screening may be inadequate where the former judge was entrusted with ex parte confidences concerning the merits and settlement posture, because the resulting risk and appearance of unfair advantage cannot be dispelled.

## Conclusion

The court required disqualification of defense counsel because the firm employed a retired judge who had received ex parte, confidential settlement communications in the same pending case, and internal screening could not cure the resulting imputed conflict or the appearance of unfairness.


Cho v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. App. 4th 113 (Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1995)