I further note there is no transcript of the disqualification hearing, so particular deference is owed to the trial court's factual findings. Arthur v. Gibson, 654 So.2d 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The determinative issue is whether there are potentially adverse interests.
The order is reviewable by certiorari. See Fla. R.App.P.9.03(b)(2); City of Apopka v. All Corners, Inc., 701 So.2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Arthur v. Gibson, 654 So.2d 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The husband was formerly represented in this dissolution proceeding by Attorney Stephanie DaCosta. During that period of time Krysti Cohen was employed as Attorney DaCosta's secretary. After DaCosta retired, Cohen accepted a position as a secretary for Attorney Dressler who was and still is representing the wife in this dissolution matter.
DENIED. See Inapro, Inc., v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 665 So.2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), rev. dismissed, 675 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1996); see also, Arthur v. Gibson, 654 So.2d 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). COBB, GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Inapro, Inc. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 665 So.2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), rev. dismissed, 675 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1996). See also Arthur v. Gibson, 654 So.2d 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (certiorari denied where petitioner failed to supply transcript of hearing, so correctness of trial court's ruling must be presumed). Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), rev. denied, 446 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1984), holds that incident reports prepared in anticipation of litigation are work product and under rule 1.280(b)(2).
Orders disqualifying or refusing to disqualify counsel are generally reviewable by certiorari. See, e.g., Double T Corp. v. Jalis Development, Inc., 682 so.2d 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (certiorari granted and order denying motion to disqualify counsel quashed); Arthur v. Gibson, 654 So.2d 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (appeal of order denying disqualification of counsel treated as certiorari and denied); Tuazon v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Inc., 641 So.2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (certiorari review of order disqualifying attorney denied, as disqualification based on attorney's access to opponent's confidential information was justified). In Arthur v. Gibson, this court held that a trial court can disqualify an attorney from representing a party if the representation will deprive the other party litigants of an impartial forum.
See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(2); Arthur v. Gibson, 654 So.2d 983, 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we grant the petition, issue the writ, quash the order under review and remand. I. THE FACTS