Water District Did Not Sue in a Representative or User Capacity.
Our state supreme court in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 35 (2010) [reviewed in our July 27, 2010 post] and People ex rel. Clancy v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.3d 740 (1985) found that a heightened duty of neutrality applies to firms representing public agencies on a contingency fee basis.
In Orange County Water District, v. The Arnold Engineering Co., Case No. G043502 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 24, 2011) (certified for publication), defendants sought to disqualify a law firm representing a Water District under a contingency fee arrangement because it did not meet the heightened Santa Clara/Clancy standards.
Not so, said Justice Aronson is rebuffing the disqualification challenge in a 3-0 unanimous decision from the Fourth District, Division 3.
Water District did not bring a representative or user public abatement action, which would be a different matter completely. Instead, it brought an action in its own name to recover compensatory damages it suffered from defendants’ alleged groundwater contamination. This was a situation to which Santa Clara and Clancy did not apply.