California Court of Appeal

In a case where plaintiff had been represented by counsel before ending that relationship and representing herself, denial of plaintiff's motion to disqualify counsel for respondent homeowner's association is affirmed where: 1) denial of the motion did not violate rule 2-100; 2) while a pro se litigant may divide the duties or representation as would any other lawyer, she may not insulate herself from contact by the court or adversary counsel; and 3) Rule 2-100 is intended to preserve the attorney-client relationship, which in this case was achieved by the pro se litigant declining to speak with the adversary or referring him to associated counsel.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/04/2008
• Published 08/04/2008

Judges

• PERREN, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• The Law Offices of John A. Schlaff, John A. Schlaff, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Prindle, Decker & Amaro LLP, Jack R. Reinholtz, Nicholas Paulos, Long Beach, for Defendant and Respondent.