DILIA PALMA
v.
ALFREDO RIVERA ALAMILLA
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting a motion to disqualify trial counsel when the lawyer is a necessary witness in the case under Florida Bar Rule 4-3.7.
[1] A lawyer is prohibited from serving as counsel for a party when the lawyer is a necessary witness in the case under Florida Bar Rule 4-3.7.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDilia Palma's trial counsel was subject to a disqualification motion filed by opposing party Alfredo Rivera Alamilla. The trial court granted the moti…
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 Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 13, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1110 Lower Tribunal No. 23-22020-CA-01 ________________
Dilia Palma, Appellant,
vs.
Alfredo Rivera Alamilla, Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge.
J.G Remus Consulting Law Firm, P.L.L.C., and Jeremy George Remus (Jacksonville), for appellant.
Nicklaus & Associates, P.A., and Edward R. Nicklaus and Mark A. Stuart; Campbell Conroy & O’Neil, and P. Brandon Perkins (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and LOGUE and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2 We treat petitioner Dilia Palma’s petition for writ of certiorari as an interlocutory appeal1 of the trial court’s March 17, 2025 nonfinal order that granted respondent Alfredo Rivera Alamilla’s motion to disqualify Palma’s trial counsel.2 We affirm the challenged order because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Alamilla’s disqualification motion. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.7 (preventing a lawyer from serving as counsel for a party when the lawyer is also a necessary witness in the case); Cordero v. Cordero, 368 So. 3d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“The Court’s standard of review for orders entered on motions to disqualify counsel is that of an abuse of discretion.”). Petition treated as interlocutory appeal and challenged order affirmed.