FAMILY LAW: POST DISSOLUTION PROCEEDINGS; LAWYERS: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY: DISQUALIFICATION OF HUSBAND’S LAWYER, WHO WAS HIS CURRENT WIFE: HUSBAND’S LAWYER, WHO WAS LIKELY TO BE A NECESSARY WITNESS, COULD NOT REPRESENT HUSBAND AT TRIAL: ORDER OF DISQUALIFICATION WAS OVERLY BROAD BECAUSE IT PREVENTED COUNSEL FROM REPRESENTING HUSBAND BEFORE OR AFTER TRIAL: APPELLATE COURT AWARDS ATTORNEY’S FEES AS A SANCTION AGAINST WIFE’S COUNSEL FOR VIOLATING HIS DUTY OF CANDOR TO THE TRIBUNAL BY FAILING TO CONCEDE THAT DISQUALIFICATION WAS OVERLY BROAD; APPEALS: CERTIORARI: ORDER OF DISQUALIFICATION DEPARTED FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW BECAUSE IT WAS IMPERMISSIBLY OVERBROAD: HUSBAND’S PETITION WAS STUNNINGLY DISRESPECTFUL IN ITS CRITICISM OF TRIAL JUDGE: HUSBAND’S LAWYER WAS SUBJECT TO DISQUALIFICATION IN FUTURE IF HER PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT PREVENTED HER FROM ADVOCATING EFFECTIVELY FOR HUSBAND

Lieberman v. Lieberman, ___ So. 3d ___, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D2457 (Fla. 4th DCA November 26, 2014)

The former husband was represented by his current wife in this post dissolution matrimonial proceeding for contempt.  The former wife moved to disqualify the husband’s lawyer because she would be a material witness at the contempt hearing.  The trial court granted … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...