4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/08/17 - Aug 17, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/08/17

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three 2h 51m 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What are the courtroom etiquette rules for oral arguments?

Unknown 2:51

You don't know. That.

Unknown 5:53

Okay, time to speak.

Unknown 6:26

My ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attention. Real quick, just a few reminders of court rules. No eating, no chewing gum, no drinking liquids while you're back there. For counsel, when you come up and send your oral argument, there is water provided for you. There is also hand sanitizer and wipes as well. We don't wipe it down between cases. We're going two cases today. This podium does adjust in height. There's a black toggle switch right here. You just hold it up for up and vice versa for down. Adjust it to your height so they can properly hear you. For those that are concerned about time, there's a clock right here. The justices will remind you if you have a couple minutes left from your time remedy requested.

Unknown 7:07

Don't read articles. Don't change your case, such as newspaper, magazines. uh restroom pretty much everybody kind of knows where it is but i'll let you know outside opposite end there's a restroom and there's water fountain there uh so do you get thirsty before your fleece is heard or if you're here just to observe that's all you're doing is observing uh there is water in that location uh any questions concerns no okay monday right

Unknown 7:45

which looks like I'm narrowed out into the next slide too.

18:33

Peace.

Unknown 21:09

All rise for appeal for the Public Division three is now session. Good morning, everyone. Good morning.

Unknown 21:24

I am Justice Moore and to my right is Justice Delaney and to my left is Judge Schwarm. We have two matters on calendar this morning and this panel will preside over both matters. The first case is Hogan versus Miller Barandess.

Unknown 21:59

Whenever you're ready, sir.

Sean Ferdinand 22:01

Good morning, Alice.

Unknown 22:02

Good morning.

Sean Ferdinand 22:04

Sean Ferdinand for the Appellants.

Unknown 22:05

Yes, and would you say that again into the microphone,

Sean Ferdinand 22:08

please? Sure. Sean Ferdinand for the Appellants.

Unknown 22:11

And you may proceed.

Sean Ferdinand 22:13

Thank you, Your Honor. I want to start out first by discussing the recent new authority that I provide notice to the court and the respondents. And that is the Doe 1 v. McGrath-Kanvenaki LLP case, which has an official site now. 121 Cal App 5th, 488. To start with, I want to discuss what the dispute has been between the appellants and respondents relating to the applicability of Shepard Mullen, and how does the Doe case resolve that dispute? So since the litigation started and throughout the appeal, respondents argued that Shepard Mullen should be interpreted very narrowly. if they were saying that the case is only about a court that vacated an arbitration award where it found that the law firm represented a client in a lawsuit against another current client and that this court should not look and infer as far as Shepard Mullin goes.

Sean Ferdinand 23:30

Unfortunately, Judge McCormick in the trial court adopted this narrow view of Shepard Mullen. Judge McCormick, in ruling on the petition to compel arbitration, stated that the Hogan's case, the Appellant's case, was distinguishable from Shepard Mullen because they alleged only potential conflicts and not actual conflicts. Now, the appellants have argued that Shepard Mullen is not a case-specific ruling. It goes beyond the facts of the case. What Shepard Mullen ruled is that any violation of the former Rule 3-310, requiring informed consent, would invalidate the agreement. The reasoning behind that is that Shepard Mullen ruled that 3-310 made the representation itself the unlawful conduct to avoid agreement.

Sean Ferdinand 24:36

It was the representation because of the violation of Rule 3-310 that was the subject of the contract that caused it to be void. And that reasoning goes equally to both an adverse interest per former Rule 3310 , or a potential conflict per former Rule 3310 , equally because both subsections forbid representation of the client without informed written consent. So that is the dispute between the panelists' response Now here comes the Doe case, Doe 1 case, that resolves the dispute. In the Doe 1 case, dealt with a case where the law firm represented multiple victims of sexual abuse by the same physician, but failed to obtain informed written consent relating to the potential conflicts inherent