All lawyers handling matters must first identify their client or clients. Failing to do so can cause later trouble, and taking inconsistent positions on that key question can be disastrous.
In Shin v. Nicholson, Case No. 23-cv-00456-VC (DMR), 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4650 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2026), private law firm CDF Labor Law represented defendant City and County of San Francisco. When plaintiff sought documents from non-party San Francisco Emergency Medical Services Agency (EMSA), CDF Labor Law (1) “explicitly disclaimed representing EMSA”; (2) explained to the court “that it could not act on EMSA’ s behalf [even to engage in a meet and confer] because EMSA is a separate entity”; and (3) could not obtain EMSA’s records “because such documents were not under [the law firm’s client]’s custody and control.” Id. at *6-7.
When the law firm later served objections on EMSA’s behalf, the obviously perturbed court noted that the law firm offered no “explanation for this complete about-face,” characterized the switch as “outrageous and inexcusable,” and struck the objections as untimely. Id. at *10, *6. Careful lawyers identify their client or clients early and contritely seek the court’s understanding if they find it necessary to later shift client identity positions.