MEEGAN KIDD N/K/A MEEGAN HYATT ALPHIN, PETITIONER,
v.
JON KIDD, RESPONDENT
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.
Meegan Alphin petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review a trial court order disqualifying her attorney Richard Feinberg from representing her in a family law proceeding against her former husband Jon Kidd. The appellate court granted the petition and quashed the disqualification order, finding the trial court failed to properly apply Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.18 regarding prospective client consultations.
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by failing to properly apply Rule 4-1.18. Because Feinberg testified credibly that no confidential information harmful to Respondent was divulged during the prospective client consultation, Feinberg is not prohibited under Rule 4-1.18(c) from representing Petitioner in these proceedings.
[1] An attorney may not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer rece…
[2] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law by failing to apply Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.18 to a motion to disqualify counsel.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“an attorney "may not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be used to the disadvantage of that person in the matter."”
States the governing rule under Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.18(c) that should have been applied by the trial court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFeinberg had a consultation with Respondent as a prospective client before agreeing to represent Petitioner against Respondent in a family law matter.…
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 Attorney Disqualification cases and more on FLexlaw
Meegan Alphin (“Petitioner”) petitions for a writ of certiorari to review a trial court order disqualifying her attorney, Richard Feinberg, from representing her during a family law proceeding involving her former husband, Jon Kidd (“Respondent”); The trial .court held a hearing on Respondent’s motion to disqualify Fein-berg and entered the order under review.
We grant Petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari on the grounds that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it failed to apply Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.18 to this determination. Failure to apply this rule properly has caused irreparable injury that cannot be remedied on appeal. Rule 4-1.18(c) provides that, even if no attorney-client relationship ensues following a consultation, an attorney “may not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be used to the disadvantage of that person in the matter.” The trial court found credible Feinberg’s testimony that no confidential information was divulged during the prospective client consultation that could harm- or disadvantage Respondent. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4-1.18, Feinberg is not prohibited from representing Petitioner in these proceedings.
The trial court relied upon State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So.2d 630 (Fla. 1991), and Metcalf v. Metcalf, 785 So.2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), in rendering the order under review. However, these cases are clearly distinguishable from the instant case because it was uncontested in both that confidential information was exchanged.
We grant the petition for writ of certio-rari and quash the trial court’s order disqualifying Feinberg from representing Petitioner.
WRIT GRANTED,- ORDER QUASHED.
COHEN, C.J., and SAWAYA and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1991)
- Metcalf v. Metcalf, 785 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)