During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Attorney Ethics

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Moore v. Superior Court (2020)

The trial court held a party's attorney guilty of four counts of indirect contempt for obnoxious behavior (constantly interrupting, calling the opposition lawyer a liar, etc.) that cratered a mandatory settlement conference before a temporary judge.  This decision affirms the contempt order on only one of the four counts.  The last count (preventing the temporary judge from revealing what had… Read More

Levine v. Berschneider (2020)

Lawyer's appeal from a contempt citation is dismissed as contempt orders are not appealable; they may only be challenged by a writ petition.  Lawyer's appeal from a sanctions order over $5,000 is appealable, but the sanctions order is affirmed.  A lawyer owes a court a duty of candor.  Here, the lawyer filed a motion to enforce a settlement.  He received… Read More

Doe v. Yim (2020)

After divorcing Yim, Lee filed this suit on behalf of her daughter Doe, claiming that Yim had sexually molested Doe.  Lee, a lawyer, sought to represent Doe in the action.  Held, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disqualifying Lee.  Under current Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7, a lawyer cannot act as an advocate "at trial" in a… Read More

Altizer v. Highsmith (2020) 2020

A non-attorney did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law by filling out and filing an application and renewal of judgment form to renew a judgment of which he and several other individuals were judgment creditors.  The task was clerical in nature, not legal.  Choosing the right form is simple.  There's only one Judicial Council form for the task. … Read More

O’Gara Coach Co., LLC v. Ra

by Jan T. Chilton |

When a law firm or client acquires an opponent's attorney-client information through surreptitious means such as hiring an outside counsel a former employee of the opposing party, the outside counsel in question must be disqualified from the representation. Read More

Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases

by Jan T. Chilton |

A law firm hired to represent water district and later fired, need not recuse itself from representing other water districts in the same litigation, especially since the first water district did not demand the recusal until ten years after hiring the law firm and was aware of the other representations the whole time. Read More

Knutson v. Foster

by Jan T. Chilton |

A former client need prove only that attorney’s fraud and breach of fiduciary duty in secretly funneling information about the client to opposing party while negotiating a settlement was a substantial factor in causing her harm, not that she would have obtained a better result but from the attorney’s wrongdoing. Read More

California Self-Insurers’ Security Fund v. Superior Court

by Kerry W. Franich |

As a general rule in California, where an attorney is disqualified from representation, the entire law firm is vicariously disqualified as well. However, the general presumption is a rebuttable one, which can be refuted by evidence that an ethical wall or other circumstances has prevented the sharing of confidences in a particular case. Read More

1 2