Lopez Sr. v. Flores, 223 So. 3d 1033

Lopez’s adult children (the Children), as plenary co-guardians, filed to annul the marriage of Jose Ignacio Lopez and Maria Flores, alleging secret retention of counsel, a prenuptial agreement, and deterioration of Lopez’s health under Flores’s care.
The Kluger Firm appeared for Flores on August 31, 2016. Two days later the Children’s counsel emailed the Kluger Firm, asserting that he had shared confidential information and strategy with a Kluger attorney and demanding the firm not represent Flores.
The Kluger Firm denied any confidential disclosures and invited the Children to move to disqualify, prompting the Children to file a motion to disqualify the firm.
At the evidentiary hearing the only witness was the Children’s attorney, who testified (unrebutted) that he had disclosed nonpublic facts and case strategy to the Kluger attorney while discussing potential co-counseling.
The trial court acknowledged the unrebutted testimony that confidential matters had been discussed but denied disqualification for lack of proof of specific confidential details or tactical advantage; it barred the particular Kluger attorney from participating and from discussing the case with the firm.
The Children petitioned for certiorari; the appellate court stayed the trial court’s order and ultimately quashed it, holding the firm must be disqualified under rule 4-1.18.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kluger Firm must be disqualified under Fla. Bar R. 4-1.18 for receiving confidences from a prospective client	Children: Unrebutted testimony shows disclosure of confidential facts and strategy to a Kluger attorney, creating an irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed and disqualification is required	Flores/Kluger: No proof of specific confidential items or tactical advantage; therefore disqualification is not warranted	Court: Where unrebutted evidence shows confidential information was shared with a firm attorney, rule 4-1.18 disqualifies that attorney and the entire firm from representing an adverse party

Gutierrez v. Rubio, 126 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (disqualification is a drastic remedy used sparingly)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1991) (irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed once attorney-client relationship and disclosure are shown)
Metcalf v. Metcalf, 785 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (applies irrefutable presumption even if the receiving attorney is not ultimately employed)
Garner v. Somberg, 672 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (same principle on presumptive disclosure)
Dean v. Dean, 607 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (recognizes prospective-client confidentiality obligations)
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Seville Place Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 74 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (standard for certiorari review: departure from essential requirements of law causing irreparable injury)