WILLIAM J. HOLLAND, PATRICIA A. HOLLAND AND H. O. T. AND ASSOCIATES, LTD., A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PETITIONERS,
v.
ARTHUR T. TENENBAUM, JEROME J. TOPPING, HAROLD SIMON AND ARTHUR T. TENENBAUM, TRUSTEE, 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.
The court held that the removal of counsel without an adequate evidentiary hearing was improper when parties' affidavits conflicted.
Respondents moved to disqualify petitioners' attorney, alleging a conflict of interest due to prior representation of both parties. The trial court gr…
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
DOWNEY, Chief Judge.
By Petition for Certiorari we have for review an order of the trial court removing Stan L. Riskin, Esquire, as attorney for the defendants/counterclaimants in the trial court.
It appears that respondents filed a motion to disqualify Mr. Riskin and remove him as counsel for petitioners on the grounds that he had previously represented both parties to this litigation in matters which should now preclude his representing petitioner because it would violate the attorney client relationship. Each of the parties filed affidavits in support of their respective contentions and the trial judge entered an order, after hearing argument but no evidence, removing Mr. Riskin as counsel.
Removal of counsel for one of the parties is a serious matter which should be done only after an adequate hearing. The affidavits filed by the parties do not agree on the issue presented, thus necessitating an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the order being reviewed is quashed and the cause is remanded with directions to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion to disqualify counsel.
CROSS and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Sears v. Stansbury, 374 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)…se along with the affidavits. Thus, there was ample material presented upon which the trial court could base a finding of substantial similarity between the two cases. The trial court apparently has misconstrued our holding in Holland v. Tenenbaum, 360 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) In Holland, both movant and respondent presented conflicting affidavits regarding an attorney’s disqualification. Thus, in order to resolve the conflict, we ordered an evidentiary hearing. In the instant case, no affidavits have…
-
Cazares v. The Church OF Scientology OF Cal., Inc., 429 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…ractice. See, e.g., Trautman v. General Motors Corp., 426 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Pantori Inc. v. Stephenson, 384 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stansbury, 374 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979); Holland v. Tenenbaum, 360 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). I think the usual disciplinary proceedings to enforce legal ethics and clients’ legal causes of action against their own counsel for breach of ethical and legal duties, coupled with the court’s power to curtail disruptive or dis…
-
Kusch v. Ballard, 645 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…k at the nature of the improper disclosure or conduct, and must, in its judicial wisdom, decide if one party has thereby gained an unfair advantage over the other. See Pantori v. Stephenson, 384 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Holland v. Tenenbaum, 360 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The trial court has conducted such an analysis here, and I simply find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel. However, I agree with the majority that the tria…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence