## Facts

- Two County of San Diego Department of Social Services employees, Ardelia McClure and William Chapman, filed complaints with the County Civil Service Commission challenging assignment and classification actions tied to budget cutbacks.
- The Commission investigated the complaints and, as part of its investigation and decisionmaking process, consulted the Office of County Counsel for legal advice, including consultations with County Counsel and a deputy county counsel.
- During the same period, the deputy county counsel consulted by the Commission also served as principal legal counsel for the Department of Social Services, whose actions were being investigated.
- The Commission ruled for the employees and ordered reinstatement with back pay.
- The Office of County Counsel then represented the County and officials in superior court mandamus proceedings seeking to overturn the Commission’s orders.
- The Commission retained independent counsel and moved to disqualify the Office of County Counsel based on conflict of interest arising from counsel’s prior advisory role to the Commission in the same disputes; the superior court denied the motion.
- The Commission petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate directing disqualification.

## Issues

1. Whether the Office of County Counsel must be disqualified from representing the County in litigation challenging Commission decisions when the office previously advised the Commission regarding the same matters.
2. Whether the Commission’s role and relationship with county counsel made it a distinct client entitled to duties of loyalty and confidentiality in those proceedings.
3. Whether an internal ethical screen within the Office of County Counsel could eliminate the conflict or appearance of impropriety.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of mandate.
- The court directed the superior court to vacate its order denying disqualification and to enter a new order disqualifying the Office of County Counsel from representing the County in the litigation arising from the Commission decisions.
- The court concluded that county counsel’s prior advisory role to the Commission on the same disputes, followed by adverse representation against the Commission, created a disqualifying conflict and appearance of impropriety not adequately cured by internal screening.

## Legal Principles

- Government law offices are subject to conflict-of-interest rules comparable to those governing private attorneys, including duties of loyalty and confidentiality.
- When a public law office advises a quasi-independent adjudicative body on a matter and receives information connected to its investigation or deliberations, the office may not later represent an adverse governmental client in litigation over the same matter absent effective protection of confidences and public trust.
- In evaluating disqualification for governmental counsel, courts consider both the risk of misuse of confidential information and the appearance of impropriety affecting the integrity and perceived independence of an adjudicative agency.
- Internal screening measures within a single government law office do not necessarily cure a conflict where the office functioned as counsel to the adjudicative body on the same dispute later challenged in court.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal required disqualification of the Office of County Counsel because it advised the Civil Service Commission during the underlying employee matters and then represented the County in litigation attacking the Commission’s resulting decisions, a conflict that threatened confidentiality and public confidence in the Commission’s independent adjudicative role.


Civil Serv. Comm’n v. Superior Ct., 163 Cal. App. 3d 70 (Ct. App. 1984)