A Bay Area attorney has been sidelined from courtroom appearances in a major Uber sexual assault case after a federal judge found his conduct toward opposing counsel crossed a line, according to court filings. The order blocks him from in‑person and video appearances but lets him stay on the plaintiffs' team under tight limits, even as high‑stakes bellwether litigation over alleged sexual assaults by Uber drivers moves forward.
According to The Mercury News, the lawyer, identified in filings as David Grimes, allegedly compared Uber attorney Christopher Cotton to a rapist, asked whether Cotton was a pedophile and made what the filings described as inappropriate references to Cotton’s daughter during a March meeting. Uber asked the court to remove Grimes from the case altogether, while his firm, Levin Simes, condemned his behavior as outrageous and improper in filings that argued he should remain on the litigation team under strict conditions.
Records from the State Bar of California show that David Michael Grimes was admitted to practice on Dec. 11, 2018, currently holds an active California license and has no public disciplinary history listed. The bar profile notes his affiliation with Levin Simes and lists USC as his law school.
Judge limits in‑court appearances
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer approved restrictions that bar Grimes from appearing in person or by video at proceedings, according to the court filings. He is still allowed to work on the litigation behind the scenes. Levin Simes and Uber jointly asked Breyer to permit Grimes to remain on the case within those constraints, and a firm letter to the judge stated that the issue had been addressed internally at Levin Simes.
Case context and civility push
The flare‑up comes in the middle of consolidated federal litigation accusing Uber drivers of sexual assault and in the midst of hard‑fought pretrial battles over how bellwether cases will unfold, as reported by Bloomberg Law. At the same time, California has rolled out a new requirement that attorneys re‑affirm an attorney civility oath every year when they renew their licenses, a step that legal observers say was meant to rein in exactly this kind of incendiary conduct between lawyers, according to Hinshaw & Culbertson.
Legal implications
Judge Breyer’s order falls short of formal discipline, but the incident has opened the door to possible internal firm discipline and potential attention from the State Bar under rule changes that highlight annual civility affirmations and spell out administrative consequences for noncompliance, according to commentary from the California Lawyers Association. Any further disciplinary or ethics action would depend on subsequent filings and whether similar conduct occurs again.
What happens next
Court documents state that Grimes attributed his outburst to a chronic condition that can trigger intense fight‑or‑flight reactions, and that he later emailed an apology to Cotton. For now, the judge has kept the plaintiffs' counsel lineup intact while tightening the rules on Grimes’ courtroom role, and pretrial work on the Uber bellwether cases is expected to continue on the existing schedule unless the court decides otherwise.
