PEDRO MEDINA

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

Citator

Cited By

• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Bowne, 817 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
  …ng communications with witness, the trial judge found: “Prior to the meeting [counsel] reviewed the Rules of Professional Conduct, the bar opinions and the case law interpreting these rules including H.B.A. Management, Inc. v. [Estate of] Schwartz, 693 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1997). [Counsel] also called the Florida Bar Ethics Hotline and secured an opinion that an ex parte interview of a former employee was not an ethical violation.” The court also found that at the beginning of the statement counsel asked the fol…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Carnival Corp. and/or Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Romero, 710 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
  …fy expert witnesses to preserve the fairness and integrity of the judicial process). With regard to the disqualification of the Romeros’ counsel, Carnival acknowledges that the Florida Supreme Court in H.B.A. Management, Inc. v. Estate of Schwartz, 693 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1997), rejected the argument that counsel for one party could not ethically have ex parte contact with a former employee of an adverse party. The court said “[a]n employee’s departure terminates the agency or respondeat superior connection that…
• Nat'l Healthcorp Ltd. P'ship v. Close, 787 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
  …tiff was free to communicate with National’s former employees. Then, on February 2, 1995, in accordance with Barfuss v. Diversicare Corp. of America, 656 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), disapproved of by H.B.A, Management, Inc. v. Estate of Schwartz, 693 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1997), National requested the court to prohibit the plaintiff from making ex parte contact with its former employees. The trial court entered a Barfuss order which prohibited ex parte contact by the plaintiff with ten former employees of Nation…