Denial of Motion to DQ – Cert Petition - Stopa Law Firm

that the conflict of interest under 4-1.7, “if permitted, would further erode the
public’s regard for the legal profession.” Id.
52. Similarly, in Campbell v. American Pioneer Savings Bank, the
litigation “involved foreclosure of a mortgage on a parcel of real estate.” 565 So.
2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The movant contended that counsel “represented her
in prior matters concerning the same property and involving a certain conveyance
thereof, which is relevant and related to the issue in litigation.” Id.
In granting
certiorari and requiring disqualification, the Fourth District ruled:
Since the Ethics Code’s protection of a client’s confidences is broader
than the evidentiary attorney-client privilege protecting privileged
communications, disqualification is indicated here to avoid the
appearance of impropriety.
Id. at 417-418.
53. Likewise, in
Andrews v. Allstate Ins. Co. , the record revealed “no
actual evidence of any impropriety on the part of petitioner’s counsel.” 366 So. 2d
462, 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Nonetheless, the Fourth District granted certiorari
and required disqualification of counsel, ruling:
The professional responsibility of a lawyer goes further; it
encompasses even the appearance of professional impropriety. … We
recognize that it is a matter of no small consequence to require a
lawyer to withdraw from a case, but with the climate existing today
vis-à-vis the Bar’s image in the public eye, appearances should be
more closely guarded than ever.
Id. at 463-464.
26