Alphin v. Kidd

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alphin v. Kidd

219 So. 3d 1021, 2017 WL 2605119, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8893

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 2017

DocketCase 5D17-137

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 219 So. 3d 1021 (Alphin v. Kidd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alphin v. Kidd, 219 So. 3d 1021, 2017 WL 2605119, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8893 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

*1022 PER CURIAM.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*1022 PER CURIAM.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 So. 3d 1021, 2017 WL 2605119, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alphin-v-kidd-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack