THI Holdings, LLC v. Shattuck, 93 So. 3d 419

Background

THI Holdings petitions for a writ of certiorari to review a trial court order denying its motion to admit out-of-state counsel Balassa pro hac vice.
Balassa, an Illinois attorney in good standing, was retained by THI Holdings and supported by local counsel’s motion and Balassa’s affidavit.
The Estate objected solely on purported conflicts of interest, offering no specifics or standing to raise them.
At the hearing, the Estate argued Balassa’s prior representations of two codefendants might create conflicts, but those matters were in separate proceedings and not shown to be substantially related.
The trial court denied the motion; THI Holdings sought certiorari relief, arguing the denial was a departure from the essential requirements of the law.
The court ultimately granted certiorari, quashed the denial, and remanded with instructions to admit Balassa pro hac vice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of Balassa’s pro hac vice admission departed from the essential law	THI Holdings argues denial based on conflicts was incorrect law	Estate contends conflicts justify denial	Yes; denial was a departure from the essential requirements of the law
Whether the Estate had standing to raise Balassa’s conflicts	Court should admit Balassa irrespective of conflicts	Estate lacks privity to raise conflicts	No; standing not satisfied; conflicts cannot forestall admission
Whether conflicts, if any, could legally affect pro hac vice admission	Conflicts are not a required ground for denial under rule 2.510(a)	Potential conflicts could be relevant if properly shown	Conflict grounds could not support denial here; law misapplied
Whether the record supported denial based on unsworn assertions	Record lacked factual basis; verified motion and affidavit were facially sufficient	Trial court could rely on arguments about conflicts	Yes; reliance on unsworn assertions was improper
Whether the court should apply Huff v. State standard for discretionary review of pro hac vice decisions			Standard applied; discretionary decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So.2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (certiorari review of essential requirements of law; discretionary orders)
Brooks v. AMP Servs., Ltd., 979 So.2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (pro hac vice denial reviewable by certiorari)
Pepsico, Inc. v. Roque, 743 So.2d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (certiorari to review admission denials of foreign attorneys)
Keller Indus., Inc. v. Yoder, 625 So.2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (same)
Clare v. Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc., 928 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (discretionary review and the need for reasonable basis)
Akrey v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC, 837 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (certiorari relief when due process or law misapplied)
Schlumberger Techs., Inc. v. Wiley, 113 F.3d 1553 (11th Cir.1997) (presumption of good moral character; cannot be undone by mere whim)
Srour v. Srour, 733 So.2d 593 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (standing to seek disqualification; family relationship not enough)
Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Przewoznik, 55 So.3d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (standing to seek disqualification; no privity between estate and attorney)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So.2d 630 (Fla. 1991) (standing; former client shoes doctrine)
Bon Secours-Maria Manor Nursing Care Ctr., Inc. v. Seaman, 959 So.2d 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (proper basis for certiorari when relying on evidence)
West Shore Restaurant Corp. v. Turk, 101 So.2d 123 (Fla.1958) (discretionary power must have rationale)
Huff v. State, 569 So.2d 1247 (Fla.1990) (basis for Rule 2.060(b) and admission standards)