ALBERT SROUR, VERA SROUR AND ELLIOTT LEVY, PETITIONERS,
v.
RAYMOND SROUR, SR., ET AL., 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 Fifth District Court of Appeal quashed a trial court's order rescinding pro hac vice admission for attorney Joseph Arellano, finding the disqualification based solely on his family relationship to a litigant was an abuse of discretion. The court held that no rule prohibits a lawyer from representing a family member, and absent actual prejudice or rule violation, such relationships do not warrant denying pro hac vice status.
The court held that disqualifying an attorney from pro hac vice practice based merely on a family relationship to a party is an abuse of discretion. There is no legal prohibition against a lawyer representing a family member, and absent demonstrated prejudice or actual rule violation, such a relationship does not warrant denying pro hac vice status.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by arbitrarily rescinding a pro hac vice admission.
[2] A lawyer's familial relationship with a litigant does not, in itself, prohibit pro hac vice admission.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Although there is considerable discretion of the trial judge in reference to admitting lawyers to pro hac vice practice, the decision should not be arbitrary.”
Establishes that while trial courts have discretion over pro hac vice admissions, such discretion must be exercised rationally, not arbitrarily.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph Arellano, a lawyer with inactive membership in Virginia and D.C. bars but admitted in the U.S. Virgin Islands and before federal appellate cour…
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 Pro Hac Vice Admission cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
We grant certiorari and quash the order rescinding the authority of Joseph B. Arel-lano to act pro hac vice as co-counsel with the law firm of Carlton, Fields. Arellano is a lawyer with inactive membership in the Virginia and District of Columbia bars but currently admitted to practice in the U.S. Virgin Islands and before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.
The court below initially admitted the pro hac vice representation but, on motion of the adverse party that petitioner had failed to comply with Rule 2.060(b), withdrew such authority not because of a violation of the rule but because it appeared that Arellano is a family member of one of the litigants. Although there is considerable discretion of the trial judge in reference to admitting lawyers to pro hac vice practice, the decision should not be arbitrary. There is no prohibition against a lawyer representing himself, let alone a family member. The objection to the representation was that Arellano might become a witness in the proceeding, but an affidavit was submitted to the court that such would not be the case because Arella-no has no knowledge concerning the merits of the cause. Respondent has shown no prejudice if Arellano is permitted, along with local counsel, to represent the plaintiffs in this cause. Plaintiffs, retired and living on fixed incomes or limited incomes, have shown prejudice if Arellano, a competent lawyer not billing them on a current basis, is not permitted to assist in their representation.
The disqualification based merely on a relationship with one of the parties is, we believe, an abuse of discretion.
Certiorari is granted and the order rescinding the pro hac vice representation is quashed.
DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THI Holdings, LLC v. Shattuck, 93 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…rements for admission pro hac vice, and the absence of conflicts of interest is not among them. Thus, the existence of a potential conflict of interest is not a legally permissible basis for denying admission pro hac vice. See, e.g., Srour v. Srour, 733 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding that it was improper for a trial court to revoke an attorney’s pro hac vice status based on an alleged conflict of interest and that his disqualification based on his familial relationship with one of the parties constit…
-
Info. Sys. Assocs., Inc. v. Phuture World, Inc., 106 So. 3d 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ough we do not deem the quoted statement and response as an admission of conflict but of representation of both Haynes and ISA, nevertheless, a conflict of interest is an improper basis for revocation of pro hac vice status. See id.; Srour v. Srour, 733 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). “ ‘[A] party ... does [*985] not have standing to seek disqualification where, as here, there is no privity of contract between the attorney and the party claiming a conflict of interest.”’ THI Holdings, 93 So. 3d at 424 (quotin…