Law Firm Should Not Have Been Disqualified.

The introductory paragraph to the opinion speaks for itself:  “The trial court disqualified a law firm from simultaneously representing a limited liability company, its managing member (a partnership), and the person who managed that partnership (who was not himself a member of the company) in a lawsuit against two of the company’s minority members. The court found that the interests of the company and the nonmember individual potentially conflicted, and concluded the law firm could not jointly represent the company and the nonmember individual against the company’s minority members. The court based its ruling on rule 3-310(C) of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct and Gong v. RFG Oil, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 209, 214-216, [82 Cal.Rptr.3d 416, 420-421] (Gong), both of which concern an attorney’s duty of loyalty to simultaneously represented clients. Because no actual conflict of interest existed between the company and the individual who managed the company’s managing member, and there was no reasonable likelihood such a conflict would arise, we reverse the court’s ruling.” Havasu Lakeshore Investments, LLC v. Fleming (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; June 19, 2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 770.