Wells v. Grau

744 So. 2d 544, 1999 WL 966744
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 20, 1999
Docket99-1856
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 744 So. 2d 544 (Wells v. Grau) 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
Wells v. Grau, 744 So. 2d 544, 1999 WL 966744 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

744 So.2d 544 (1999)

James R. WELLS and his Wife, Brenda Wells, Petitioners,
v.
Gerard D. GRAU, M.D., Fort Lauderdale Plastic Surgery Center, P.A., and Sharon Sheaf Grau, Respondents.

No. 99-1856.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

October 20, 1999.

Donald A. Tobkin, Hollywood, for petitioners.

Jeanne C. Brady and Frank R. Brady of Brady & Brady, P.A., Boca Raton, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioners, plaintiffs in a medical malpractice suit below, seek certiorari review of an order disqualifying their attorney, Donald Tobkin. While taking a deposition in an unrelated bankruptcy case, Tobkin asked certain questions which pertained to the deponent's involvement in the preparation of a pre-suit affidavit for the defense in the Wells' medical malpractice case. Although this deposition appears to have violated the bankruptcy rules[1] and the prohibition against discovery in the Florida Medical Malpractice Act, Tobkin did not actually obtain any privileged or objectionable information in that deposition. Consequently, he should not have been disqualified from representing the petitioners in the medical malpractice case below since there was no showing that he obtained an unfair advantage by reason of the improper deposition. See 5500 North Corp. v. Willis, 729 So.2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

We, therefore, grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order disqualifying counsel. The trial court may consider *545 taking other action, including ordering that the deposition not be used and striking any pleading in whole or in part that refers to information obtained in the deposition. Of course, the trial court still has the authority to sanction Tobkin and even refer the matter to the Bar, as in 5500 North.

STONE, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] Counsel was fined by the bankruptcy court.

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

Related

Whitener v. FIRST UNION NAT. BANK OF FLA.
901 So. 2d 366 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Cunningham v. Appel
831 So. 2d 214 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Palmer v. State
775 So. 2d 404 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
744 So. 2d 544, 1999 WL 966744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-grau-fladistctapp-1999.