THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, etc. v. BIRK HILLMAN CONSULTANTS, INC.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 1, 2023
• Docket: 22-0938
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 1, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-0938 Lower Tribunal No. 04-11813 ________________

The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, etc., Appellant,

vs.

Birk Hillman Consultants, Inc., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami- Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge.

White & Case LLP, and Raoul G. Cantero and James N. Robinson and Ryan A. Ulloa and W. Dylan Fay, for appellant.

Law Office of Michael Garcia Petit, P.A., and Michael Garcia Petit (Miramar), for appellee Brian Kuei Tung; Holland & Knight LLP, and Rodolfo Sorondo, Jr., and Rebecca M. Plasencia, for appellee Steve Ferguson.

Before HENDON, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Moriber v. Dreiling, 95 So. 3d 449, 453 (Fla. 3d DCA

2012) (“[T]he disqualification of counsel is left to the sound discretion of the

trial court, as long as such discretion is exercised within the confines of the

applicable law and the trial court’s express or implied findings are

supported by competent substantial evidence.”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So. 2d 630, 634 (Fla. 1991) (recognizing the “irrefutable

presumption that confidences were disclosed” in cases involving a direct

conflict of interest with a former client and finding that actual proof of

prejudice is not a prerequisite for disqualification of party counsel due to

such a conflict); Gaton v. Health Coal., Inc., 745 So. 2d 510, 511 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1999) (“After the moving party meets its burden of establishing a

prima facie case for disqualification . . . [t]he firm whose disqualification is

sought must then demonstrate that their new associate has no actual

knowledge of any confidential information material to the case. . . . The

affidavits submitted in support of the disqualification motion clearly state

that counsel for Gaton and Stiefel provided Lipton with ‘extensive

background on all aspects of the case,’ ‘mental impressions on the entire

matter,’ ‘strategies and how they impacted the future of the case,’ and

‘overall thoughts regarding liability, damages, and discovery of the case as

a whole.’ This was sufficient to meet their burden of proof.”).