CONRAD KAHN ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSEPH MILON, APPELLEE
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.
Plaintiffs appealed an interlocutory order requiring them to retain counsel separate and independent from plaintiff Jerry Kahn, an attorney. The court reversed, holding that a party has a right to represent himself and to employ counsel of his choice, and that no conflict of interest existed in having their son represent them.
A party has the legal right to act as his own attorney and to employ counsel of his choice. Plaintiff Jerry Kahn may represent himself and, if the other plaintiffs choose, may represent them as well, provided that any substitution of counsel is accomplished through proper motion under the rules of civil procedure. No separate or independent counsel requirement exists absent a conflict of interest.
[1] An order staying all proceedings until plaintiffs retain separate and independent counsel is reviewable by a petition for writ of common law certiorari.
[2] A party to a cause may act as his own attorney in Florida.
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“The law of Florida is well established that a party to a cause may act as his own attorney.”
Establishes the fundamental right of self-representation in litigation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Conrad and Pearl Kahn and their son Jerry filed suit against Joseph Milon for slander, intentional infliction of mental distress, and invas…
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 Substitution Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs take this interlocutory appeal to review an order staying all proceedings until such time as the plaintiffs retain separate and independent counsel pursuant to defendant’s ore tenus motion. We reverse.
At the onset, we note that this order is not properly reviewable by interlocutory appeal pursuant to FAR 4.2. However, we shall treat this appeal as a petition for writ of common law certiorari and determine the cause on the merits. See Art. V, 2(a), Constitution of the State of Florida.
This cause arises out of a neighborhood backyard quarrel. As a result, plaintiffs Conrad and Pearl Kahn and their son Jerry filed suit against Joseph Milon for slander, intentional infliction of mental distress and invasion of privacy. Originally Andrew Tobin, Esq. represented plaintiffs. Thereafter, however, without moving for substitution of counsel, plaintiff Jerry Kahn and his brother Donald, both attorneys, began filing pleadings and/or appearing on behalf of plaintiffs at various hearings where they announced that Marvin Michaels, Esq. would act as trial counsel. Defendant then moved ore tenus for authority as to representation of counsel. Whereupon, the court entered the appealed order staying all proceedings until such time as plaintiffs retain, in effect, counsel separate and independent of plaintiff Jerry Kahn.
The law of Florida is well established that a party to a cause may act as his own attorney. See § 454.18, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. and Carr v. Grace, Fla.App.1975, 321 So. 2d 618. Further, in general, any person who has the legal capacity to contract may employ an attorney of his choice. See 3 Fla.Jur. Attorneys at Law § 25 (1955). Thus, we find that appellant Jerry Kahn may represent himself in this action and if appellants Conrad and Pearl Kahn so choose, he may represent them also.1 Further, we note there is absent in the record any motion for substitution of counsel pursuant to RCP 1.030(e) and, therefore, whoever is substituted as attorney for appellants must file such a motion before he may be allowed to appear. Accordingly, the order directing that appellants retain separate and independent counsel is quashed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
. There being no conflict of interest in this case in having their son represent them.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zola Klein v. The Royale Grp., Ltd., 524 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…the stay, with directions to dissolve stay, and proceed with the matter upon the issue made by the pleadings. . An order refusing to vacate a stay in the several district courts of appeal has been reviewed by common law certiorari, Kahn v. Milon, 332 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Paley v. Cocoa Masonry, Inc., 354 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Stein v. Bayfront Medical Center, Inc., 287 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) or by non-final appeal. Regan, Inc. v. Val-Ro, Ltd., 396 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and…
-
Philip M. Warren, P.A. v. Arcara, 566 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…e order of the trial court requiring Philip M. Warren to withdraw as counsel for Philip M. Warren, P.A., in this suit over unpaid attorney’s fees. See Ocean Club Condo. Ass’n v. Estate of Daly, 504 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), and Kahn v. Milon, 332 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (appropriateness of certiorari review). See Kahn; Mansur v. Drage, 484 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1986); Florida Bar Opinion 84-4 (Sept. 15, 1984) (lawyer litigant can represent himself even if…
-
Hauser v. Coates, 478 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ranted. The trial court’s order disqualifying a law firm from representing itself in a declaratory judgment action brought to interpret a contract between the parties is quashed. See Munne v. Garcia, 414 So. 2d 1099 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Kahn v. Milon, 332 So. 2d 149 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); § 454.18, Fla.Stat. (1983).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carr v. Grace, 321 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)