3/17/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

together that week. He was not suggesting that Commissioner Wheeler would or wouldn't do anything in terms of conveying or whatever, but he felt there is a significant conflict. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that only two Commissioners were lobbied on this issue, himself and Commissioner Wheeler, but Chairman Eggert interjected that they tried to contact her but she wasn't available. Commissioner Scurlock stated that his personal feeling is that there is a problem and, therefore, is supportive of Attorney Reynolds who is representing us collectively, not individually. We hire attorneys for advice, and he felt we should follow it. Commissioner Wheeler wished to address the innuendo and point out an inaccuracy. Neither Mr. Prince nor Attorney Clem visited him, nor did they lobby him. He received the documentation on the case in the same manner as the rest of the Commissioners did. It simply was handed to him. Further, the only conference that he was even present at was when Mr. Prince and Attorney Clem met with our full staff and he simply sat in as an observer. Commissioner Wheeler didn't see a conflict with two lawyers in the same firm coming from different directions, but wished to hear from our legal staff as to their opinion in this matter. Attorney Vitunac advised that he would speak to the matter if the Board wished. Attorney Reynolds first pointed out Rule 4-1.10 under Rules Regulating the Florida Bar regarding Imputed Disqualifications: RULE 4-1.10 IMPUTED DISQUALIFICATION; • GENERAL RULE (a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by rule 4-1.7, 4-1.8(c), 4-1.9, or 4-2.2. (b) When a lawyer becomes associated with a firm, the firm may not knowingly represent a per- son in the same or a substantially related matter in which that lawyer, or a firm with which the lawyer was associated, had previously represented a client whose interests are materially adverse to that per- son and about whom the lawyer had acquired infor- mation protected by rules 4-1.6 and 4-1.9(b) that is material to the matter. (c) When a lawyer has terminated an association with a firm, the firm is not prohibited from there- after representing a person with interests material- ly adverse to those of a client represented by the formerly associated lawyer unless: (1) The matter is the same or substantially relat- ed to that in which the formerly associated lawyer represented the client; and (2) Any lawyer remaining in the firm has infor- mation protected by rules 4-1.6 and 4-1.9(b) that is material to the matter. (d) A disqualification prescribed by this rule mi be waived by the affected client under the con# tions stated in rule 4-1.7. 50