EASTRICH NO. 157 CORPORATION, A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION, D/B/A PARK TERRACE APARTMENTS, AEW CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, D/B/A PARK TERRACE APARTMENTS, AND GABLES RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION, F/K/A TRAMMEL CROW RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION, D/B/A PARK TERRACE APARTMENTS, PETITIONERS,
v.
CLAUDIA C. GATTO, 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.
Eastrich No. 157 Corporation challenged a trial court order disqualifying its counsel based on the opposing party's former legal secretary being hired briefly as an independent contractor to perform non-legal billing work. The court granted the petition, holding that while the Koulisis disqualification rule generally applies, it does not apply when a former employee from opposing counsel's firm is hired in a purely non-legal capacity.
The court granted the petition and quashed the disqualification order, holding that while Koulisis's disqualification rule generally applies to former employees of opposing counsel, it does not apply when such an employee is hired in a purely non-legal capacity and does not perform secretarial duties for the opposing party's firm.
[1] A former legal secretary's brief, non-legal employment with opposing counsel's firm, after having access to confidential information at the plaintiff's counsel's firm, ma…
[2] The burden shifts to a law firm to demonstrate by the greater weight of the evidence that a former employee had no actual knowledge of confidential information material t…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In Koulisis we held that once a party moving for disqualification had established a prima facie case for attorney disqualification, the burden of proof shifted to the law firm whose disqualification was sought. Its burden was to demonstrate by the greater weight of the evidence that the secretary had no actual knowledge of any confidential information material to the case.”
Establishes the Koulisis standard for attorney disqualification based on former opposing counsel employees
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe underlying case involves a premises liability claim. A former legal secretary who had worked for the plaintiff/respondent's counsel and was privy …
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.
Eastrich No. 157 Corporation seeks relief from an order that disqualified its counsel. See, e.g., Koulisis v. Rivers, 730 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We grant the petition.
The underlying action involves a premises liability claim. The employee at issue worked as a legal secretary for plaintiff/respondent’s counsel. After being terminated from her employment as a secretary with the plaintiffs firm, the employee at issue was given the opportunity to work part time for Eastrich’s attorney’s firm. As an independent contractor the former employee worked at the opposing firm for two days, for five hours each day entering billing data into the computer. The billing records did not concern the underlying case. Albeit reluctantly, the trial court looked to Koulisis, and granted the motion to disqualify defense counsel.
In Koulisis we held that once a party moving for disqualification had established a prima facie case for attorney disqualification, the burden of proof shifted to the law firm whose disqualification was sought. Its burden was to demonstrate by the greater weight of the evidence that the secretary had no actual knowledge of any confidential information material to the case. Through this petition, Eastrich asks this court to reconsider our opinion in Koulisis in favor of the view allowing for the screening of non-lawyer employees. See, e.g., Stewart v. Bee-Dee Neon & Signs, Inc., 751 So. 2d 196, 198-99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); City of Apopka v. All Corners, Inc., 701 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Esquire Care, Inc. v. Maguire, 532 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
We adhere to our opinion as stated in Koulisis, but find it distinguishable from the case before us. As detailed above, the employee herein was not hired as an employee or legal secretary by the opposing party’s firm, nor did she perform any secretarial duties. Although there is no apparent dispute that during her employment at plaintiffs counsel’s firm she was privy to privileged information concerning the case, her brief, and now-completed, employment in opposing counsel’s firm, in a non-legal capacity, represents an exception to the rule in Koulisis. CERTIORARI GRANTED AND ORDER QUASHED.
POLEN, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Christo W. Koulisis, M.D. v. Rivers, 730 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Zyburo v. State, 701 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Esquire Care, Inc. v. Maguire, 532 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Selvin Williams v. State, 751 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Stewart v. Bee-Dee Neon & Signs, Inc., 751 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)