Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantattorneymotionburden of proof

plaintiffdefendantattorneylawyermotionwill

Related Cases

Quail Cruises Ship Management Ltd. v. Agencia De Viagens CVC Limitada, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 2926042

Facts

The dispute arose from two sales transactions involving the M/V Pacific, where the defendants claimed a conflict of interest due to the representation by Holland & Knight, LLP. The first transaction in 2005 involved CVC purchasing the vessel from Pullmantur Shipping, while the second transaction in 2008 involved CVC negotiating to purchase the vessel from Templeton International, Inc. The defendants argued that HK had represented them in these transactions, while the plaintiff contended that HK had never represented CVC.

The first occurred in 2005. CVC entered into an agreement for the purchase of the vessel with Pullmantur Shipping (“Pullmantur”), a company that is affiliated with the Pullmantur Group, a longtime client of HK. CVC claims that only HK, and no other lawyers, represented it in that transaction.

Issue

Did an attorney-client relationship exist between CVC and Holland & Knight, LLP, and did the defendants have grounds to disqualify the plaintiff's counsel?

Defendants claim that HK is conflicted pursuant to Fla. Bar Reg. 4–1.9, “Representation of Interests Adverse to Former Client,” which expressly prohibits a lawyer from representing a client with an adverse interest to his former client.

Rule

To disqualify counsel, a movant must establish the existence of a prior attorney-client relationship and that the matters in the pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter.

Pursuant to Florida law, a movant must establish 1) the existence of a prior attorney-client relationship, and 2) that the matters in the pending suit are substantially related to the previous matter.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented by the defendants and found that they failed to prove an attorney-client relationship existed. The engagement letter sent to CVC was never returned, and Mencio, the attorney from HK, had no reason to believe that CVC sought to establish a relationship. Furthermore, the court noted that the defendants did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims and had waived their right to seek disqualification by delaying their motion.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff on all arguments, and each will be discussed in turn.

Conclusion

The court denied the motion for disqualification, concluding that the defendants did not meet their burden of proof and had waived their right to seek disqualification.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Agencia de Viagens CVC Limitada, et al.'s Motion for Disqualification of Plaintiff's Counsel is DENIED.

Who won?

Quail Cruises Ship Management Ltd. prevailed in the case because the court found that the defendants failed to establish an attorney-client relationship and had waived their right to disqualify the plaintiff's counsel.

Quail eventually paid. CVC claims that it paid for HK's services through Quail by giving Quail a credit for HK's fees on their balance sheets.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317

Taneja v. Familymeds Group, Inc., Not Reported in A.2d, 2010 WL 2573762, 50 Conn. L. Rptr. 73

In re Fengling Liu, 109 A.D.3d 284, 969 N.Y.S.2d 57, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 05295

Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1146, 184 U.S.P.Q. 775

Schaeffer v. Cohen, Rosenthal, Price, Mirkin, Jennings & Berg, P.C., 405 Mass. 506, 541 N.E.2d 997