JENNY EVY RIDDLE, PETITIONER,
v.
ALAN TAYLOR RIDDLE AND THE PLANK FACTORY, INC., 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.
Jenny Riddle sought a writ of certiorari to challenge a trial court order disqualifying her attorney from representing her in divorce proceedings. The appellate court granted the petition and quashed the disqualification order, finding it overbroad because it prohibited counsel from representing her in all aspects of the case, when Florida law only prohibits an attorney from acting as an advocate at trial when likely to be a necessary witness.
The court quashed the disqualification order because it was overbroad. Under Florida Rule Regulating the Bar 4-3.7(a), an attorney cannot act as an advocate at trial if likely to be a necessary witness, but this does not prevent representation in other pre-trial, trial, and post-trial proceedings. The case was remanded for the trial court to compel counsel's deposition before revisiting the disqualification issue.
[1] Certiorari review is available for trial court orders disqualifying an attorney.
[2] Disqualification of a party's chosen counsel is a drastic remedy that should be used sparingly.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness on behalf of the client”
Establishes the limited scope of the disqualification rule under Florida Bar rules—it applies only at trial when the attorney is likely to be a necessary witness, not to all aspects of representation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner's attorney failed to appear for a deposition in ongoing divorce proceedings. The trial court issued an order disqualifying the attorney fro…
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
Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari directed to a trial court order that disqualified her attorney from representing her in the pending divorce proceedings. Certiora-ri review lies. Lieberman v. Lieberman, 160 So.3d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). We grant the petition and quash the disqualification order upon accepting respondent’s concession that it is overbroad because it disqualifies counsel from “all aspects” of the case. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.7(a) (“A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness on behalf of the client ....”) (emphasis added); Lieberman, 160 So.3d at 74 (“As is well established by numerous Florida courts, the fact that Ferrer [attorney and current wife] was a potentially necessary witriess at the contempt hearing would not prevent her from serving as the former husband’s attorney in other pre-trial, trial, and post-trial proceedings.”); see also KMS Rest. Corp. v. Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley P.A., 107 So.3d 552, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
Disqualification of a party’s chosen counsel is a drastic remedy that should be used sparingly. Lieberman, 160 So.3d at 75. Here, petitioner’s attorney’s failure to appear for deposition seemingly resulted in *338the broad order. While respondent asked the trial court to compel counsel to appear for the deposition as an alternative to disqualification, the trial court failed to rule on that portion of the motion. The record furnished, which includes an evidentiary hearing, reveals that the trial court cannot adequately consider the motion to disqualify and its scope until counsel’s involvement in the underlying dissolution of marriage case is clarified. See Quality Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Vrastil, 895 So.2d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Singer Island Ltd. v. Budget Constr. Co., 714 So.2d 651, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Nucci v. Simmons, 20 So.3d 388, 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
Consequently, we quash the order that disqualifies counsel from representing petitioner “in all aspects” of the case. The case is remanded for the trial court to compel counsel’s deposition before it revisits the disqualification issue.
Petition Granted, Order Of Disqualification Quashed, Case Remanded.
Gerber, Levine and Conner, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Singer Island Ltd., Inc. v. Budget Constr. Co., Inc., 714 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Robert C. Nucci, M.D. v. Simmons, 20 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Quality AIR Conditioning Co., Inc. v. Vrastil, 895 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- KMS Rest. Corp v. Searcy, 107 So. 3d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Lieberman v. Lieberman, 160 So. 3d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)