 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hooser v. Superior Court of San Diego County11/13/2000
t exists only to the extent that it is not yet fixed and certain (undisputed); once his interest becomes fixed and undisputed, he is required promptly to withdraw the funds in which he has an interest from the account(s). (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 4-100(A)(2).) Further, Ray has available other means (for example, through questions at Hooser's examination or interrogatories propounded to him) for determining whether Hooser has an interest in funds on deposit in his client trust account(s) without requiring the disclosure of private and sensitive information about the third party clients. Based on the existence of alternative, non-intrusive methods of discovery, we conclude that Ray has not established a compelling need for the disclosure of the bank statements relating to third party clients' funds on deposit in Hooser's client trust account(s).
DISPOSITION
Let a writ of mandate issue directing the superior court to modify its order granting in part and denying in part the motion to quash to provide that Hooser need not respond to Ray's requests for the names of Hooser's undisclosed clients and that Hooser may redact any client-specific information set forth from bank statements relating to client trust account(s) maintained by him. The stay issued on April 7, 2000 is vacated when this opinion is final as to this court. Each party to bear its own costs on appeal.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
McINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
KREMER, P. J.
HALLER, J.
|