BOCA INVESTORS GROUP, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
IRWIN POTASH, STANLEY COHEN, ALEXANDER BRODT, RAY LARSEN, SUZANNE BOSZE, BRUCE YOUNER, MURRAY NORKIN, DAVID PARESKY, IRA OSTROW, JOE SLOTNICK, ARNOLD BROSER, ROBERT E. TORTER AND RICHARD VOELL, RESPONDENTS
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.
The court quashed a disqualification order against plaintiff's counsel because the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a presuit meeting with defendants constituted a mere job interview or created an attorney-client relationship requiring disqualification.
An evidentiary hearing is required to determine whether a presuit meeting between counsel and prospective clients was a job interview or created an attorney-client relationship before disqualifying counsel.
[1] An evidentiary hearing is required to determine whether a presuit meeting between counsel and prospective clients constituted a job interview or created an attorney-clien…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“an irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed”
describing the consequence of finding that the presuit meeting created an attorney-client relationship
Plaintiff's counsel held a presuit meeting with representatives of the defendants. The trial court disqualified the counsel based on this meeting, but…
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 Motion To Disqualify Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The trial court disqualified the plaintiffs counsel because he held a presuit meeting with representatives of the defendants. The order was entered notwithstanding an unresolved conflict as to whether the meeting was essentially a “job interview” which concerned only the lawyer’s abilities to serve as their counsel in the upcoming litigation — which would not require disqualification; or also included discussion of the legal matters involved in the case, resulting in an attorney-client relationship and thus an irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed — which would. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1991); Keir v. State, 152 Fla. 389, 11 So. 2d 886 (1943); see also Garner v. Somberg, 672 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
Because an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve this decisive issue, School Brd. of Broward Co. v. Polera Building Corp., 722 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stansbury, 374 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979); Holland v. Tenenbaum, 360 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), the order of disqualification is quashed with directions for the trial court to conduct that hearing and for further appropriate proceedings thereafter. Certiorari granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gaton v. Health Coal., Inc., 745 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…ases involving a direct attorney-client relationship, the courts have recognized an irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So. 2d 630 (Fla.1991); Boca Investors Group, Inc. v. Potash, 728 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Garner v. Somberg, 672 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We agree with HCI that for vicarious disqualification under rule 4-1.10(b), however, Gaton and Stiefel may not rely on this presumption. There must be a showing that the newly…
-
Simon DeBARTOLO Grp., Inc. v. Bratley, 741 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…ally related to, the [*1255] matter in which the attorney represented the former client. Id. When an attorney’s disqualification is at issue and material facts are in dispute, an evidentiary hearing is required. Boca Investors Group, Inc. v. Potash, 728 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Sch. Bd. of Broward County v. Polera Building Corp., 722 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Because there is a dispute as to whether Coker, Myers represented Petitioner in a matter that is substantially related to the instant case,…
-
Solomon v. Anne E. Dickison, M.D., 916 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…ases involving a direct attorney-client relationship, the courts have recognized an irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed, State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So. 2d 630 (Fla.1991); Boca Investors Group, Inc. v. Potash, 728 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Garner v. Somberg, 672 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We agree with HCI that for vicarious disqualification under rule 4-1.10(b), however, Gaton and Stiefel may not rely on this presumption. There must be a showing that the newly…
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1991)
- Keir v. State, 152 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1943)
- Sears v. Stansbury, 374 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)
- Holland v. Tenenbaum, 360 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- The Sch. Bd. OF Broward Cnty. v. Polera Bldg. Corp., 722 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Garner v. Reed Somberg, 672 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)