irrefutable presumption in Florida

2010The concurrent representation of two parties in the same action gives “rise to an irrefutable presumption that confidences [are] disclosed during the course of that relationship.” Id. (citing Junger Util. & Paving Co. v. Myers, 578 So.2d 1117, 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)).

2006See Junger, 578 So.2d at 1119 ("the former client need show only that an attorney-client relationship existed, thereby giving rise to the irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed during the course of that relationship").

2025K.A.W. requires that a party seeking to disqualify opposing counsel based on a conflict of interest must demonstrate that: (1) an attorney-client relationship existed, thereby giving rise to an irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed during the relationship, and (2) the matter in which the law firm subsequently represented the interest adverse to the former client was the same or substantially related to the matter in which it represented the former client. 7 Kaplan v. Divosta Homes, L.P., 20 So. 3d 459, 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (quoting K.A.W., 575 So. 2d at 633 ).

2023Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So. 2d 630, 633 (Fla. 1991) (holding a party “seeking to disqualify opposing counsel based on a conflict of interest must demonstrate that (1) an attorney-client relationship existed, thereby giving rise to an irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed during the relationship, and (2) the matter in which the law firm [or attorney] subsequently represented the interest adverse to the former client was the same or substantially related 2 to the matter in which it represented the former client.”) When these two elements are shown, rule 4–1.9 creates “an irrefutable

2025K.A.W. requires that a party seeking to disqualify opposing counsel based on a conflict of interest must demonstrate that: (1) an attorney-client relationship existed, thereby giving rise to an irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed during the relationship, and (2) the matter in which the law firm subsequently represented the interest adverse to the former client was the same or substantially related to the matter in which it represented the former client. 7 Kaplan v. Divosta Homes, L.P., 20 So. 3d 459, 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (quoting K.A.W., 575 So. 2d at 633 ).

2011Quoting from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So.2d at 633 , the Kaplan court noted that a proponent *1053 of a motion to disqualify counsel based upon a conflict of interest must establish that (1) an attorney-client relationship existed, thereby giving rise to an irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed during the relationship, and (2) the matter in which the law firm subsequently represented the interest adverse to the former client was the same or substantially related to the matter in which it represented the former client. 20 So.3d at 462 .

2023Young v. Achenbauch, 136 So. 3d 575, 583 (Fla. 2014) (quoting K.A.W., 575 So. 2d at 633–34) (holding a party “seeking disqualification under rule 4–1.9 does not have to demonstrate actual prejudice to the former client as a result of the subsequent representation because the existence of an attorney-client relationship ‘giv[es] rise to an irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed.’”); see Gaton v. Health Coal., Inc., 745 So. 2d 510, 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

2015Gaton v. Health Coalition, Inc., 745 So.2d 510, 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

2001Frederick's position is that he established the existence of an attorney-client relationship and that under applicable case law an irrefutable presumption arose that confidences were disclosed. [4] See Russakoff v. Dep't of Ins., 724 So.2d 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Simon DeBartolo Group, Inc. v. Bratley, 741 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

2000See Russakoff v. State, Dept. of Ins., 724 So.2d 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); see also Lee v. Florida Dept. of Ins.

2010The concurrent representation of two parties in the same action gives “rise to an irrefutable presumption that confidences [are] disclosed during the course of that relationship.” Id. (citing Junger Util. & Paving Co. v. Myers, 578 So.2d 1117, 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)).

1995University of Miami v. Dansky, 622 So.2d 613, 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (citing Junger Util. & Paving Co., Inc. v. Myers, 578 So.2d 1117, 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)).

2006Old Town Assocs., Ltd., 759 So.2d 690, 693 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) ("[O]nce an attorney-client relationship is shown, an irrefutable presumption arises that confidences were disclosed to the attorney, and the only remaining requirement is a showing that the current case involves the same subject matter or is substantially related to the matter in which the lawyer represented the moving party.").

2001Id.; Key Largo, 759 So.2d at 693 (citing McPartland v. ISI Inv.

2006We have noted, in Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. v. Orozco, 595 So.2d 240, 242 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 605 So.2d 1265 (Fla.1992), that Bar Rule 4-1.9 applies where a direct attorney-client relationship exists and the subject matter is the same or substantially related, and if that is found, the irrefutable presumption shall be applied.

1999As we pointed out in Nissan Motor, a disqualification case falling under Rule 4-1.10(b)does not involve the application of the irrefutable presumption test. 595 So.2d at 242 .

2002Gaton, 745 So.2d at 511 ; Koulisis, 730 So.2d at 293 .

2001See Koulisis, 730 So.2d at 293 .

2023Young v. Achenbauch, 136 So. 3d 575, 583 (Fla. 2014) (quoting K.A.W., 575 So. 2d at 633–34) (holding a party “seeking disqualification under rule 4–1.9 does not have to demonstrate actual prejudice to the former client as a result of the subsequent representation because the existence of an attorney-client relationship ‘giv[es] rise to an irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed.’”); see Gaton v. Health Coal., Inc., 745 So. 2d 510, 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

2009“An order involving the disqualification of counsel must be tested against the standards imposed by the [Florida Bar] Rules of Professional Conduct.” Estright v. Bay Point Improvement Ass’n, Inc., 921 So.2d 810, 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (quoting Morse v. Clark, 890 So.2d 496, 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)). 3 A party seeking to disqualify opposing counsel based on a conflict of interest must demonstrate that: (1) an attorney-client relationship existed, thereby giving rise to an irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed during the relationship, and (2) the matter in which the law firm s

2009“An order involving the disqualification of counsel must be tested against the standards imposed by the [Florida Bar] Rules of Professional Conduct.” Estright v. Bay Point Improvement Ass’n, Inc., 921 So.2d 810, 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (quoting Morse v. Clark, 890 So.2d 496, 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)). 3 A party seeking to disqualify opposing counsel based on a conflict of interest must demonstrate that: (1) an attorney-client relationship existed, thereby giving rise to an irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed during the relationship, and (2) the matter in which the law firm s

1999To reach its conclusion, the second district reasoned that with support personnel, a weaker presumption arises "that potentially damaging confidences are in danger of revelation, as would arise if an attorney left one employer for another." Esquire Care, 532 So.2d at 742 (citation omitted).

1996The privilege that supports the irrefutable presumption "does not turn on the client actually hiring or engaging the attorney; it is enough if the client merely consulted the attorney ... "with the view to employing [the attorney] professionally * * * although the attorney is not subsequently employed.'" Dean v. Dean, 607 So.2d 494, 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), rev. dismissed, 618 So.2d 208 (Fla.1993).

1995While both *155 Powell firms may not have engaged in any ethical misconduct, the "possibility of conflict of interest and the appearance of it are too strong to ignore." Id. (quoting Rotante v. Lawrence Hosp., 46 A.D.2d 199, 200 , 361 N.Y.S.2d 372, 373 (1974)).

1995While both *155 Powell firms may not have engaged in any ethical misconduct, the "possibility of conflict of interest and the appearance of it are too strong to ignore." Id. (quoting Rotante v. Lawrence Hosp., 46 A.D.2d 199, 200 , 361 N.Y.S.2d 372, 373 (1974)).