Miami-Dade Courthouse. (Credit: Lisa Willis/ALM)

A state court in Miami has entered an order disqualifying an attorney and his co-counsel from a litigation matter. The judge found that the attorney's testimony would "inevitably require him to challenge the very contract he drafted" for the defendant, a former client.

The case involves the Knights of Columbus suing Fetes & Events, alleging that the defendant undermined its activities. The plaintiffs are represented by Jordi Martínez-Cid and Terry A.C. Gray from Martinez-Cid Law, and they were co-counseled by Carlos Alberto Zarraluqui.

"We disagree with the unusual ruling," Gray said in a statement, "but can provide no further comment given the posture of the case."

In 2019, four years before this litigation, Fetes, which is represented by Jonathan Osborne, Michael Green and Frank A. Florio from Gunster, asked Zarraluqui to assist with revising and finalizing its event contract, working alongside Fetes' president, JC Miranda, to mark up the document.

In April 2023, Zarraluqui began assisting the Knights of Columbus in litigation against Fetes without disclosing his prior work for the defendant. He was actively involved in the Knights of Columbus' strategy, playing a key role in shaping its claims against Fetes and participating in all aspects of the litigation.

The judge, in disqualifying Zarraluqui, wrote that "while the plaintiff refused to stipulate that the event contract and related issues are central to both Zarraluqui's work for Fetes and his current work for the plaintiff, the plaintiff did stipulate that they are an aspect of this litigation."

But the disqualification's ruling was not just for Zarraluqui.

Since "Zarraluqui and the Martinez-Cid Firm could not have worked more closely together" and "Zarraluqui admitted that every decision made by the Martinez-Cid Firm concerning this litigation is made in consultation with him," Judge Thomas also disqualified the Martinez-Cid Firm under Florida Bar Rules 4-1.9 and 4-1.10.

"There really was no other possible outcome, and I assume that is why neither Zarraluqui nor Martinez-Cid put up much of a fight," said Bob Jarvis, an ethics professor at Nova Southeastern University College of Law, who is not involved in the case. According to the judge's ruling, the Martinez-Cid Firm did not submit any declarations or affidavits in connection with the disqualification motion.

Jarvis highlighted that Judge Thomas ruled that "the fact that attorney Zarraluqui did not have an engagement letter with Fetes does not limit the scope of his representation," and "the fact that Zarraluqui was not paid by Fetes does not affect their attorney-client relationship."

"As we always stress in law school, lawyers have to be very careful when switching sides. The best practice, of course, is not to switch sides," Jarvis said. "The second best practice is to get the former client's permission, which Zarraluqui specifically did not do.The third best practice is to be absolutely sure that the new matter does not in any way involve the work the lawyer did on the previous matter."

Jarvis explained that disqualifying opposing counsel is not easy, as courts are well aware of disqualification motions being used as a tactical strategy.

"It's possible that the lawyer will be made the target of a bar complaint," he said. However, he believes it is more likely that the current client will be upset, refuse to use the lawyer again, withhold payment of any outstanding bills, and perhaps demand reimbursement for fees already paid.