GENERAL ELECTRIC REAL ESTATE CORP. AND GENERAL ELECTRIC CREDIT CORP. OF GEORGIA, PETITIONERS,
v.
S.A. WEISBERG, INC., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
General Electric Real Estate Corp. and its affiliate sought to overturn a trial court order disqualifying their counsel from representing them. The trial court had disqualified the firm based on a respondent's claim that counsel was a necessary witness and may have represented the respondent in the past. The appellate court reversed, holding that factual disputes regarding whether an attorney-client relationship existed required a full evidentiary hearing rather than summary disqualification.
The court held that Weisberg's subjective belief that Bailey and Barr were representing him, without clear facts demonstrating the reasonableness of that belief, does not warrant summary disqualification. Instead, the conflicting facts regarding the alleged attorney-client relationship must be resolved through a full evidentiary hearing.
[1] A court should grant certiorari to review an order disqualifying counsel when the order is based on conflicting facts presented in motions, responses, and affidavits.
[2] A subjective belief that an attorney-client relationship exists, without supporting facts demonstrating the reasonableness of that belief, requires an evidentiary hearing…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the motions, responses thereto and affidavits present conflicting facts”
The court's recognition that factual disputes existed preventing summary resolution of the disqualification motion
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent S.A. Weisberg, Inc. filed a motion to disqualify General Electric's counsel, alleging that attorney Guy B. Bailey, Jr. of the firm Bailey H…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney Disqualification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
General Electric Real Estate Credit Corp. and General Electric Credit Corp. of Georgia petition this court for a writ of certiorari and for quashal of a March 19, 1992, order of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court. The order disqualifies petitioners’ counsel from continuing representation of petitioners in their lower court action. We grant certiorari, quash the order, and remand for a full evidentiary hearing.
Respondent alleged below in a motion to disqualify counsel that attorney Guy B. Bailey, Jr., a member of petitioners’ law firm, Bailey Hunt Jones & Busto, is a necessary witness in the action below. As a result, the firm should be disqualified from further representation of petitioners. Respondent also filed an amended motion to the same effect, supported by an affidavit of Sanford A. Weisberg. Mr. Weisberg attested therein that he was under the impression, during meetings with Mr. Bailey and a former firm member, Robbie Barr, that these two individuals were his attorneys. In short, respondent alleged below that he thought that an attorney-client relationship existed between respondent and petitioners’ counsel.
We agree with petitioners that the motions, responses thereto and affidavits present conflicting facts. In our view, Mr. Weisberg’s subjective “thoughts” that Mr. Bailey and Ms. Barr were representing him, in the absence of facts clearly showing that his belief was a reasonable one, should be subjected to a full evidentiary hearing.
Accordingly, we grant certiorari, quash the trial court’s order disqualifying petitioners’ counsel from continuing to represent petitioners in this action, and remand for a full evidentiary hearing.
WARNER, POLEN, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., JR., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yang Enters., Inc. v. Mavis Georgalis, 988 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…June 2001, making them former clients of the firm. While Petitioners subjectively asserted below that the firm still represented them, the objective record evidence belies their [*1184] claim. See Gen. Elec. Real Estate Corp. v. S.A. Weisberg, Inc., 605 So. 2d 955, 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (subjective impression of conflict requires evidentiary hearing in light of contradictory evidence that such evidence was objectively reasonable). As we noted, Petitioners never sought an evi-dentiary hearing to establish a…
-
Pascucci v. Pascucci, 679 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…fidential information concerning the family during his brief conference with counsel. There was no evidentiary hearing and nothing more than supposition that confidences had been disclosed. See General Elec. Real Estate Corp. v. S.A. Weisberg, Inc., 605 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Nevertheless, the trial court granted former husband’s motion for disqualification. We have repeatedly and unequivocally held that “[disqualification of a party’s chosen counsel is an extraordinary remedy that should be resorte…