Alphin v. Kidd , 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8893 ( 2017 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
MEEGAN KIDD N/K/A MEEGAN HYATT
ALPHIN,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 5D17-137
JON KIDD,
Respondent.
________________________________/
Opinion filed June 16, 2017
Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from
the Circuit Court for Brevard County,
Tonya B. Rainwater, Judge.
Richard J. Feinberg, of Law Office of
Richard J. Feinberg, Indialantic, for
Petitioner.
Valerie Towery Weaver, of The Loris Law
Group, Viera, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Meegan Alphin (“Petitioner”) petitions for a writ of certiorari to review a trial court
order disqualifying her attorney, Richard Feinberg, from representing her during a family
law proceeding involving her former husband, Jon Kidd (“Respondent”). The trial court
held a hearing on Respondent’s motion to disqualify Feinberg and entered the order
under review.
We grant Petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari on the grounds that the trial court
departed from the essential requirements of the law when it failed to apply Rule of
Professional Conduct 4-1.18 to this determination. Failure to apply this rule properly has
caused irreparable injury that cannot be remedied on appeal. Rule 4-1.18(c) provides
that, even if no attorney-client relationship ensues following a consultation, an attorney
“may not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective
client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from
the prospective client that could be used to the disadvantage of that person in the matter.”
The trial court found credible Feinberg’s testimony that no confidential information was
divulged during the prospective client consultation that could harm or disadvantage
Respondent. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4-1.18, Feinberg is not prohibited from
representing Petitioner in these proceedings.
The trial court relied upon State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. K.A.W.,
575 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1991), and Metcalf v. Metcalf, 785 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001),
in rendering the order under review. However, these cases are clearly distinguishable
from the instant case because it was uncontested in both that confidential information
was exchanged.
We grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court’s order
disqualifying Feinberg from representing Petitioner.
WRIT GRANTED, ORDER QUASHED.
COHEN, C.J., and SAWAYA and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
2