IGOR STOLYAR
v.
DR. LEONARD HOCHSTEIN, ETC.
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 denying a motion to disqualify counsel when the applicable ethical rules do not require disqualification based on the facts presented.
[1] A trial court's discretion to rule on a motion to disqualify counsel is limited by applicable legal principles governing conflicts of interest and prior representation, a…
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 intelligence“Matters are 'substantially related' for purposes of this rule if they involve the same transaction or legal dispute, or if the current matter would involve the lawyer attacking work that the lawyer performed for the former client.”
Comments to Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.9, cited to define the standard for disqualification based on prior representation.
Igor Stolyar appealed a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County regarding a motion to disqualify counsel. The case involved a dis…
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 Motion To Disqualify Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed December 17, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1146 Lower Tribunal No. 24-3930-CA-01
________________
Igor Stolyar, Appellant,
vs.
Dr. Leonard Hochstein, etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lisa S. Walsh, Judge.
Barry S. Turner, P.A., and Barry S. Turner, for appellant.
Berkeley Law, P.A., and Lorne E. Berkeley (Cooper City), for appellee.
Before EMAS, LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Young v. Achenbauch, 136 So. 3d 575, 581 (Fla. 2014) (“The standard of review for orders entered on motions to disqualify counsel
2 is that of an abuse of discretion. While the trial court’s discretion is limited by the applicable legal principles, the appellate court will not substitute its judgment for the trial court’s express or implied findings of fact which are supported by competent substantial evidence.” (quotation omitted)); Comments, R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.9 (“Matters are ‘substantially related’ for purposes of this rule if they involve the same transaction or legal dispute, or if the current matter would involve the lawyer attacking work that the lawyer performed for the former client.”); Gonzalez ex rel. Colonial Bank v. Chillura, 892 So. 2d 1075, 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (rejecting argument that Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.7 required disqualification of plaintiff’s counsel in shareholder derivative action on behalf of company where same counsel also represented plaintiff individually in direct actions against company); cf. FlexFunds Holdings, LLC v. Rivero, 341 So. 3d 478, 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (affirming disqualification of counsel in action between shareholders where counsel previously represented both organization and plaintiff shareholder and instant action involved both direct and derivative claims).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Young v. Norva L. Achenbauch, 136 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 2014)
- Gonzalez v. Chillura, 892 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Flexfunds Holdings, LLC v. Rivero, 341 So. 3d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)