A California state insurance fund has asked a federal judge to reconsider a ruling that disqualified the fund’s downtown L.A. attorneys from a $160 million medical fraud case.

San Francisco’s State Compensation Insurance Fund said in a filing Monday that U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Guilford erred when he ruled that high-powered Hueston Hennigan, who represented the fund, had an “unwaivable” conflict of interest in the case and was subject to disqualification.

Attorneys from downtown L.A.’s Munger Tolles & Olson are now representing the fund in the disqualification dispute. They argued in Monday’s filing that the “conflict would only be unwaivable if an attorney aims to represent two clients in the same contested hearing who have an ‘actual, present, existing conflict,’” which they maintain is not the case.

Guilford ruled in March that Hueston Hennigan violated its ethical responsibilities by representing both the state fund and Paul Randall, a medical marketing exec who is a third-party defendant in the case and a criminal defendant who pleaded guilty to defrauding the fund. Hueston Hennigan maintains written waivers signed by both Randall and the state insurance fund were sufficient buffers to ward off any claims of ethical impropriety.

The filing is backed up by declarations from UC Irvine School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson, and legal ethics attorney Ellen Pansky of South Pasadena’s Pansky Markle Ham.

Hueston did not immediately respond to request for comment. Read the Business Journal’s previous coverage of the case here.