THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, etc. v. BIRK HILLMAN CONSULTANTS, INC.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 1, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-0938 Lower Tribunal No. 04-11813 ________________

The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, etc., Appellant,

vs.

Birk Hillman Consultants, Inc., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami- Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge.

White & Case LLP, and Raoul G. Cantero and James N. Robinson and Ryan A. Ulloa and W. Dylan Fay, for appellant.

Law Office of Michael Garcia Petit, P.A., and Michael Garcia Petit (Miramar), for appellee Brian Kuei Tung; Holland & Knight LLP, and Rodolfo Sorondo, Jr., and Rebecca M. Plasencia, for appellee Steve Ferguson.

Before HENDON, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Moriber v. Dreiling, 95 So. 3d 449, 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“[T]he disqualification of counsel is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, as long as such discretion is exercised within the confines of the applicable law and the trial court’s express or implied findings are supported by competent substantial evidence.”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So. 2d 630, 634 (Fla. 1991) (recognizing the “irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed” in cases involving a direct conflict of interest with a former client and finding that actual proof of prejudice is not a prerequisite for disqualification of party counsel due to such a conflict); Gaton v. Health Coal., Inc., 745 So. 2d 510, 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“After the moving party meets its burden of establishing a prima facie case for disqualification . . . [t]he firm whose disqualification is sought must then demonstrate that their new associate has no actual knowledge of any confidential information material to the case. . . . The affidavits submitted in support of the disqualification motion clearly state that counsel for Gaton and Stiefel provided Lipton with ‘extensive background on all aspects of the case,’ ‘mental impressions on the entire matter,’ ‘strategies and how they impacted the future of the case,’ and ‘overall thoughts regarding liability, damages, and discovery of the case as a whole.’ This was sufficient to meet their burden of proof.”).