Quinn Emanuel disqualified from appeal of $10B dispute

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP has been disqualified from representing on appeal a defendant who lost a $10 billion breach of contract dispute because the firm's attorneys consulted with the plaintiff about potentially representing him in the matter more than 20 years ago.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Susan Bryant-Deason issued her order on Thursday following a two-day hearing. Quinn Emanuel's attorneys did not formally appear or file papers in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for their disqualification from representing real estate tycoon Haresh Jogani.

The hearing was punctuated by Quinn Emmanuel senior counsel Kathleen M. Sullivan addressing the judge from the gallery, offering to answer any questions she had.

"I just want to make clear that I'm here and available to the court to assist the court and to perform my duty of candor to the court, which I take very seriously. And to rebut the allegations, [that] there has been any ethical misconduct here, to set the record straight on that, and above all, to try to assist the court in resolving this," Sullivan said.

"We did nothing wrong, your honor. Absolutely nothing. I have 42 years of experience, your honor. You know that when we went into this profession 40 years ago, it was not very receptive to women," Sullivan continued, later.

Plaintiff's attorney Steven R. Friedman pushed back.

"Your honor, so I'm going to object. She doesn't have standing to appear. And she's now appealing to sentiment, and she isn't addressing the obligation that she has to their prior client. That's who was prejudiced here," Friedman said to Bryant-Deason.

"And you haven't appeared, you haven't filed paperwork," he said to Sullivan.

A spokesperson for Quinn Emanuel forwarded a written statement from a partner in response to a request for comment as to why the firm did not appear or contest the motion to disqualify: "Because we had not appeared and had determined not to represent the Haresh defendants, we had no role and the court had no live controversy before it involving Quinn Emanuel," said Harry A. Olivar Jr.

The issue stems from a long-running dispute among the Jogani brothers over ownership of thousands of apartments in Southern California as well as the family's global diamond business. Steven R. and Michael E. Friedman prevailed in February when the jury awarded an estimated $10 billion to their client, Shashikant "Shashi" Jogani and two of his brothers after five months of trial. Jogani v. Jogani et al., BC290553 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Feb. 18, 2003).

Information about Quinn Emanuel's involvement surfaced in April during a hearing in which defendant Haresh Jogani's trial attorneys with Larson LLP informed Bryant-Deason that Kathleen M. Sullivan of Quinn Emanuel was going to be the appellant counsel. A private investigator hired by Haresh to interview jurors about any possibility of misconduct filed a declaration stating that Larson attorneys instructed him to share his juror interview notes with "appellate counsel at Quinn Emanuel."

Shashi Jogani's attorneys, the Friedmans, promptly moved to disqualify the firm, arguing that consultations and exchange of information between Shashi and Quinn Emanuel's attorneys before Shashi sued his brother in 2003 created an attorney-client relationship even though Shashi retained another firm.

"The law, and we've cited it throughout, is that there is no ability - Quinn has no ability - to turn around and now represent Haresh against Shashi in the same matter," Michael E. Friedman told Bryant-Deason on Wednesday.

"And in fact, courts of appeal have called this the most egregious of conflicts because it not only undermines the individual client's respect and understanding for the judicial system, but the public at large loses faith in a system in which you can consult an attorney and then have an attorney turn around and say, 'I will represent your enemy against you, having now gotten your privileged and secret information,'" Michael E. Friedman continued.

Haresh Jogani's attorneys with Stris & Maher LLP opposed the motion to disqualify the firm, arguing on Wednesday and Thursday that any information about plaintiff Shashi Jogani in Quinn Emmanuel's possession is in the trial record and therefore not confidential. The firm does not represent Quinn Emanuel and could only speculate as to its motives.

"That information, whatever it could be, will now have been public," Stris & Maher partner Victor A. O'Connell said to the judge.

"The information is just not confidential anymore, and it's not material to post appellate representation, even post-trial motions," O'Connell continued.

"I know they didn't ultimately do them. But had they done them it wouldn't have been confidential. And so, Shashi would have received notice that they were participating as soon as they filed the notice of appeal. There was no obligation to send him a letter in advance at that point, because there's just no chance of anything that he ever did with Quinn Emanuel mattering at this point. That's my that's my understanding," O'Connell said.

Bryant-Deason was not convinced.

"I think that's the place where we disagree," she responded. "Because that's something that's mandatory ... you have to give them notice."

Bryant-Deason cited Shashi Jogani's declaration saying that Quinn Emanuel Senior Partner Christopher Tayback told him that all his interaction and communication with him and the firm was protected by the attorney client privilege and could never be disclosed or used against him, even if the firm does not represent him in the case.

"The representations that were made between them, the confidential information ... including how they plan to win the case, the key evidence which would prove the partnership and the weaknesses of Shashi's case ... Now, I'm sorry, that's it. That's everything. It's not the nutshell. It's like, in a big chest. I just don't know how you get around not giving notice to him," she said.