## Facts

- A federal qui tam action alleged J‑M Manufacturing Co. misrepresented PVC pipe quality to numerous public entities, including South Tahoe Public Utility District.
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP agreed to represent J‑M in the qui tam case while also maintaining an ongoing attorney-client relationship with South Tahoe on unrelated employment matters.
- Both J‑M and South Tahoe had signed engagement agreements containing broad advance conflict waivers, but the firm did not specifically disclose to either client that it represented the other in a matter where their interests were adverse.
- South Tahoe later learned of the concurrent representation, moved to disqualify the firm in the qui tam action, and the court granted disqualification.
- The firm billed over 10,000 hours; J‑M paid about $2.5 million and disputed roughly $1.3 million in additional fees.
- The firm sued for unpaid fees; J‑M sought disgorgement of fees already paid.

## Issues

1. Whether an undisclosed concurrent conflict of interest, notwithstanding broad advance waivers, rendered the engagement agreement (including its arbitration clause) unenforceable as against public policy.
2. If the engagement agreement was unenforceable, whether the firm was categorically barred from any recovery of fees, or could instead recover the reasonable value of services in quantum meruit.

## Decision

- The court held the firm’s undisclosed concurrent conflict violated applicable conflict-of-interest rules and made the advance waiver ineffective.
- The engagement agreement, including the arbitration clause, was unenforceable as against public policy; the arbitration award and judgment confirming it could not stand.
- The court rejected a per se rule requiring forfeiture or disgorgement of all fees due to the ethical violation.
- The matter was remanded for the trial court to determine whether, and to what extent, the firm could recover in quantum meruit based on equitable considerations.

## Legal Principles

- Informed written consent for concurrent representation of clients with adverse interests requires disclosure sufficiently specific to the known conflict; boilerplate advance waivers that do not identify the conflict are ineffective.
- A fee agreement formed in violation of core attorney ethical duties may be unenforceable as against public policy; an arbitration clause within such an agreement fails with the agreement when the illegality affects contract formation.
- Even when a fee agreement is unenforceable due to an ethical violation, an attorney is not automatically barred from all compensation; quantum meruit recovery may be available, subject to equity, including the seriousness of the violation and any harm to the client.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated a law firm’s fee agreement and embedded arbitration clause due to an undisclosed concurrent conflict of interest and ineffective advance waiver, but held the ethical violation did not automatically require total fee forfeiture, leaving any quantum meruit recovery to an equitable determination on remand.


Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Mfg. Co., 6 Cal. 5th 59 (Cal. 2018)