Nissan Motor v Orozco
595 So.2d 240 (Fla. App. 1992)
Facts
Orozco: Plaintiff
Nissan: Defendant
Rumberger: Rumberger law firm
Schlesinger: Schlesinger law firm
Buechele: Attorney Paul Buechele

1) Rumberger (Orlando) defends Nissan against Orozco

2) Buechele-Rumberger (Miami) takes routine deps for Nissan

3) Buechele switches to Schlesinger firm

4) Buechele appears for Orozco on motion against Nissan

5) Nissan moves to disqualify Schlesinger firm from representing Orozco

6) Schlesinger fires Buechele

7) Schlesinger files affidavits: no one left at firm with knowledge from Nissan

• Note slight difference in rule numbers between Florida and ABA
• What result if Buechele stayed at Schlesinger law firm?
  • Entire firm is disqualified. See MR 1.10(a).
  • By firing Buechele, Schlesinger turns this into a 1.10(b) situation [In Florida, Rule 1.10c]
  What if a lawyer moves from Rumberger to Schlesinger who had not worked on case?
  • Then a case under MR 1.9 (b) [In Florida, Rule 1.10b]
• What if Buechele had been screened at Schlesinger firm (dumb to send him to motion!)
  • No help under 2002 Model Rules
    • Contrast MR 1.11 for former govt lawyers
    • But many federal courts and some states (e.g. Illinois) would apply MR 1.11 approach to all lawyers
  • 2009 ABA Amendment to MR 1.10(a) extends MR 1.11 approach to private firms (with additional procedural safeguards)