SIMON DEBARTOLO GROUP, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
EMMA JEAN BRATLEY AND FRANK BRATLEY, HER HUSBAND, 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 Florida First District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari, holding that a trial court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing before determining that opposing counsel had no disqualifying conflict of interest. The court found that once an attorney-client relationship is established, material factual disputes about whether the prior representation is substantially related to the current matter must be resolved through an evidentiary hearing.
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by concluding there was no conflict without holding an evidentiary hearing. When an attorney's disqualification is at issue and material facts are in dispute, an evidentiary hearing is required before determining whether the attorney can represent the opposing party.
[1] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing when material facts are in dispute regarding an attorney's disqu…
[2] Once an attorney-client relationship is established, an irrefutable presumption arises that confidences were disclosed during the course of that relationship.
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“Once an attorney-client relationship is established, an irrefutable presumption arises that confidences were disclosed during the course of the relationship.”
Establishes the legal standard that triggers the need for further analysis of disqualification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn attorney-client relationship existed between Petitioner (Simon DeBartolo Group, Inc.) and the law firm Coker, Myers, Schickel, Sorenson, Higginboth…
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 Substantially Related Matters cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
This cause is before us on a petition for writ of certiorari from the trial court’s ruling that the law firm of Coker, Myers, Schickel, Sorenson, Higginbotham & Green, P.A. (Coker, Myers), has no conflict of interest and is not disqualified from representing Respondents in the proceedings below. Petitioner argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by reaching its conclusion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. We agree.
A hearing was held on a motion to determine conflict, and it was undisputed that an attorney-client relationship existed between Petitioner and Coker, Myers.
However material issues were in dispute, which were addressed only by the unsworn argument of counsel. Once an attorney-client relationship is established, an irrefutable presumption arises that confidences were disclosed during the course of the relationship. Russakoff v. Dep’t. of Insur., 724 So. 2d 582, 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
However, before an attorney can be disqualified, the former client must show that the current subject matter is the same as, or is substantially related to, the 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, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing before concluding there was no conflict. We grant the petition for writ of certiorari and remand for further proceedings.
WOLF and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frederick W.J. Eggers v. Eggers, 776 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…ence of an attorney-client relationship and that under applicable case law an irrefutable presumption arose that confidences were disclosed.4 See Russakoff v. Dep’t of Ins., 724 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Simon DeBartolo Group, Inc. v. Bratley, 741 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The only remaining inquiry is whether the former client has shown that the current subject matter is the same or substantially related to the matter in which the attorney represented the former client. Russakoff; Simon DeBartolo…
-
Selina Akrey v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., L.L.C., 837 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…ypes of claims he defended, or the facilities involved was presented to the trial court. Because the trial court ordered disqualification based on insufficient affidavits, we hold, as did the First District in Simon DeBartolo Group, Inc. v. Bratley, 741 So. 2d 1254, 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), “that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by reaching its conclusion without conducting an evi-dentiary hearing.” See also Graham v. Wyeth Labs. Div. of Am. Home Products Corp., 906 F. 2d 1419,…
-
Vick v. Bailey, 777 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…ituation where Fiss represented a specific party in a prior case and then sought to represent an adversarial party in a subsequent ease where both cases involved the same or a substantially related matter. See Simon DeBartolo Group, Inc. v. Bratley, 741 So. 2d 1254, 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding trial court departed from essential requirements of law in failing to hold evidentiary hearing before concluding there was no conflict on question of whether counsel previously represented petitioner in matter subs…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Sch. Bd. OF Broward Cnty. v. Polera Bldg. Corp., 722 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Russakoff v. State, 724 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Boca Invs. Grp., Inc. v. Irwin Potash, 728 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)