PATSY L. CAMPBELL, PETITIONER,
v.
AMERICAN PIONEER SAVINGS BANK FORMERLY KNOWN AS FIRST FIDELITY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, ROBERT HARRY WOOD AND OLIVIA D. WOOD, ALSO KNOWN AS DOVIE O. WOOD, HIS WIFE, 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 trial court erred in denying the motion to disqualify counsel because the matters were substantially related and disqualification was indicated to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Petitioner sought to disqualify counsel for respondents, alleging the attorney previously represented petitioner in substantially related matters conc…
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 Substantial Relationship Test cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks review by writ of certiorari of an order of the trial court denying petitioner’s motion to disqualify Burton C. Conner as counsel for respondents. We have considered the respective filings of the parties and conclude that the order under review should be quashed.
The subject litigation involved foreclosure of a mortgage on a parcel of real estate. Petitioner contends that Conner represented her in prior matters concerning the same property and involving a certain conveyance thereof, which is relevant and related to the issue in litigation.
Before a client’s former attorney can be disqualified from representing adverse interests, it must be shown that the matters presently involved are substantially related to the matters in which prior counsel represented the former client. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stansbury, 374 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979). We believe there is a prima facie showing of that here. Furthermore, since the Ethics Code’s protection of a client’s confidences is broader than the evidentiary attorney-client privilege protecting privileged com munications, disqualification is indicated here to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Buntrock v. Buntrock, 419 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Andrews v. Allstate Insurance Company, 366 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Accordingly, we grant the writ of certiorari and quash the order appealed from, and direct the trial court to enter an order of disqualification of Burton C. Conner as counsel for the respondents in this case.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kenn AIR Corp. v. Gainesville-Alachua Cnty. Reg'l Airport Auth., 593 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…la. 1st DCA 1978). Orders granting or denying motions to disqualify a party’s attorney may be appropriately reviewed by certiorari. See, e.g., Jenkins v. Harris Ins., Inc., 572 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Campbell v. American Pioneer Sav. Bank, 565 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Ford v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 436 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 5th [*1222] DCA 1983), review denied, 444 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1984); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stansbury, 374 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979). Rule 4-1.6 of the Rules Regulating The…1 / 2
-
LEE v. Fla. Dep't OF Ins. & Treas., 586 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…client or former client not to use or disclose information or confidences learned during that representation, and is forbidden to use such information for the advantage of himself or of a third person. See Campbell v. American Pioneer Savings Bank, 565 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Ford v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 436 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), rev. denied, 444 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1984); Buntrock v. Buntrock, 419 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Bateman and his firm’s representation of NCCI gave rise to an ir…
-
Coffey-Garcia v. S. Miami Hosp., Inc., 194 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…Code and Evidence Code is significant because Florida courts have interpreted the Ethics Code’s rule of client-lawyer confidentiality to be broáder in scope than the Evidence Code's . attorney-client privilege. See Campbell v. Am. Pioneer Sav. Bank, 565 So. 2d 417, 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (“[T]he Ethics Code’s protection of a client’s confidences is broader than • the evidentiary attorney-client privilege protecting privileged communications,”) Buntrock v. Buntrock, 419 So. 2d 402, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) ("T…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sears v. Stansbury, 374 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)
- Suetta L. Andrews v. Allstate Ins. Co., 366 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Buntrock v. Buntrock, 419 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)