From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCormack v. Russell

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jun 5, 2013
114 So. 3d 456 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

Opinion

No. 4D13–1452.

2013-06-5

Cari McCORMACK, Individually and as Beneficiary of the Cari McCormack S Trust, Petitioner, v. Judith RUSSELL, Individually and as Trustee of the Cari McCormack S Trust, Director of Peanuts Holdings, LLLP, f/k/a Peanuts Holdings, Ltd., a Florida limited liability partnership, and Director of Carmac Holdings, Inc., a Florida corporation, Respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Thomas M. Lynch, IV, Judge; L.T. Case No. 12–27552CA05. Andrew W. Abel and Michael J. Schlesinger of Schlesinger & Associates, P.A., Miami, for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.


Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Thomas M. Lynch, IV, Judge; L.T. Case No. 12–27552CA05.
Andrew W. Abel and Michael J. Schlesinger of Schlesinger & Associates, P.A., Miami, for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
PER CURIAM.

We deny the petition for writ of certiorari on the merits. Petitioner seeks interlocutory review of the trial court's order denying her motion to disqualify respondent's law firm due to prior representation of petitioner in another matter by a recently-hired attorney for that firm; petitioner claimed that legal confidences were provided by this attorney to her new employer, who represents the opposing party to this lawsuit. While certiorari review is appropriate to consider orders denying a motion to disqualify counsel due to alleged conflicts of interest, Manning v. Cooper, 981 So.2d 668, 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), the trial court's order here is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Thus, petitioner cannot show that the order departs from the essential requirements of law, since the attorney adamantly denied receiving any confidences from petitioner, who testified to the contrary at an evidentiary hearing below. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. v. Orozco, 595 So.2d 240, 243–44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); see also Scott v. Higginbotham, 834 So.2d 221, 223–24 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Petition denied.

STEVENSON, GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McCormack v. Russell

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jun 5, 2013
114 So. 3d 456 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)
Case details for

McCormack v. Russell

Case Details

Full title:Cari McCORMACK, Individually and as Beneficiary of the Cari McCormack S…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Date published: Jun 5, 2013

Citations

114 So. 3d 456 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)