THE EVENT FIRM, LLC, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
JEAN H. AUGUSTIN, 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.
The Event Firm, LLC sought certiorari review of a trial court order disqualifying its counsel without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court held that when material facts regarding an attorney-client relationship are disputed, a trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing before ordering disqualification, and reversed the disqualification order.
A trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing when material facts necessary to determine disqualification are disputed. The trial court erred in disqualifying counsel based solely on the court file and parties' arguments without resolving the factual dispute over whether the attorneys represented Augustin individually or only TEF.
[1] Denying a party counsel of their choice constitutes a material injury without an adequate appellate remedy, making disqualification orders reviewable by certiorari.
[2] A trial court must determine whether an attorney-client relationship exists or existed between the non-moving party and the challenged attorney when disqualification is b…
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“Where disqualification is based on a conflict of interest between clients, the trial court must first determine whether an attorney-client relationship exists or existed between the non-moving party and the challenged attorney.”
Establishes the threshold requirement for disqualification based on conflicts of interest
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Event Firm (TEF) is an event planning business with three managing members, including respondent Jean H. Augustin. The attorneys represented TEF i…
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 Disqualification Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, The Event Firm, LLC (“TEF”), seeks certiorari review of an order disqualifying counsel, Adorno & Yoss, LLP and Alan Rosenthal (“the attorneys”). We grant the petition.
TEF is an event planning business, with three managing members, Fe Domenech, Art Izquierdo, and respondent, Jean H. Augustin (“Augustin”). The attorneys represented TEF in preparing the organizational documents, and also in defending a separate lawsuit against TEF. When TEF sued Augustin, Augustin moved to disqualify the attorneys from representing TEF. The trial court disqualified the attorneys without an evidentiary hearing.
Augustin contends that TEF is not entitled to certiorari relief because TEF has suffered no irreparable harm and is free to retain other counsel. Further, Augustin contends the trial court properly determined that a conflicting attorney-client relationship exists or existed between Au-gustin and the attorneys.
TEF asserts that, in disqualifying its counsel without an evidentiary hearing, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. TEF argues that the trial court had no evidentiary basis for finding an attorney-client relationship. We agree with TEF. First, certiorari is the proper method to obtain review of a disqualification order because denying a party counsel of his or her choice is a material injury without appellate remedy. See, e.g., Akrey v. Kindred, Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC, 837 So. 2d 1142, 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Thus, TEF is entitled to certiorari review of the disqualification order. Next, we consider if the trial court took a procedural misstep in deciding whether disqualification was warranted. Where disqualification is based on a conflict of interest between clients, the trial court must first determine whether an attorney-client relationship exists or existed between the non-moving party and the challenged attorney. See, e.g., Gonzalez ex rel. Colonial Bank v. Chillura, 892 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Where material facts, necessary to determine disqualification, are in dispute, a trial court should hold an evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., Quality Air Conditioning Co. v. Vrastil, 895 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Further, neither unverified motions nor legal argument constitute competent evidence for a factual determination. See generally Beck’s Transfer, Inc. v. Peairs, 532 So. 2d 1136, 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
Here, there was a clear dispute as to whether the attorneys represented Au-gustin. TEF claimed the attorneys represented only the business. Augustin alleged that he was led to believe otherwise. The trial court relied on the court file and the parties argument, which were insufficient to resolve the attorney-client relationship dispute. Thus, the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing before disqualifying TEF’s counsel.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, reverse the order disqualifying the attorneys, and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Petition granted, order reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chessler v. ALL Am. Semiconductor, Inc., 225 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…1996) (en banc). Here, without doubt, the order of disqualification at issue reflects a potential irreparable injury “because denying a party counsel of his or her choice is a material injury without appellate remedy.” Event Finn, LLC v. Augustin, 985 So. 2d 1174, 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). We therefore have jurisdiction and turn to consider whether the order departs from the essential requirements of law. To disqualify opposing counsel the movant must demonstrate that (1) “an attorney-client relationship exi…
-
The Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Przewoznik, 55 So. 3d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…review of an order disqualifying its counsel, Houck Anderson, P.A, from representing it in the instant action. Finding that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law, we grant the petition. See Event Firm, LLC v. Augustin, 985 So. 2d 1174, 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (noting that “certiorari is the proper method to obtain review of a disqualification order because denying a party counsel of his or her choice is a material injury without appellate remedy”). In April 2008, Petitioner paid…
-
Razin v. A Milestone, LLC, 67 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…We acknowledge that certiorari is typically the most appropriate method to obtain review of a disqualification order “because denying a party counsel of his or her choice is a material injury without appellate remedy.” Event Firm, LLC v. Augustin, 985 So. 2d 1174, 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); see also Pinebrook Towne House Ass’n v. C.E. O’Dell & Assocs., 725 So. 2d 431, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). However, we believe that due to the appointment of the custodian, the orders here fall within the parameter of rule 9.1…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gonzalez v. Chillura, 892 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Selina Akrey v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., L.L.C., 837 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Quality AIR Conditioning Co., Inc. v. Vrastil, 895 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Beck's Transfer, Inc. v. Peairs, 532 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)