Case Name: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, and Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al., Petitioners, v. K.A.W., a minor, etc., Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-01-31
Citations: 557 So. 2d 601
Docket Number: Nos. 89-0901, 89-0921
Parties: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, and Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al., Petitioners, v. K.A.W., a minor, etc., Respondents.
Judges: HERSEY, C.J., and STONE, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 557
Pages: 601–603

Head Matter:
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, and Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al., Petitioners, v. K.A.W., a minor, etc., Respondents.
Nos. 89-0901, 89-0921.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan. 31, 1990.
Debra J. Snow and Robert M. Klein of Stephens, Lynn, Klein & McNicholas, P.A., Miami, for petitioner Interstate Fire and Cas. Co.
Richard A. Sherman of Richard A. Sherman, P.A., and Henry Seiden, Fort Lauder-dale, for petitioner State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Steven R. Berger of Wolpe, Leibowitz, Berger & Brotman, Miami, and George, Hartz & Lundeen, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner Continental Cas. Co.
Larry Klein of Klein, Beranek & Walsh, P.A., • West Palm Beach, and Sheldon J. Schlesinger of Sheldon J. Schlesinger, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We deny the petition for certiorari as petitioners failed to show irreparable injury or that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying the motion to disqualify respondents' attorneys from continued representation in this case.
The petitioner insurance companies sought to disqualify the respondents' attorneys from representing the respondents. The attorneys originally represented a father, mother and daughter in connection with an automobile accident and related malpractice claim. The father drove the vehicle in which his passenger daughter was injured in a collision. After the father gave his deposition and after full consultation, the attorneys deemed it necessary on behalf of the mother and daughter, to sue the father for negligence in causing the accident. The father consented, then was joined as a defendant together with his insurance company, and now has retained his own counsel. The insurance companies challenged the continued representation of the mother and daughter by the law firm, even though the father consented to its continued representation of the mother and daughter against him. Additionally, the father filed an affidavit stating he had said everything pertinent to the case in his deposition, he did not consider anything he said to his former counsel privileged, and he saw no disadvantage to him of their continued representation of his family. We note that here no proof of substantial prejudice or circumstances exists calling into question the fair and efficient administration of justice and, therefore, need not address the impact of such factors on a question of standing where they are present.
HERSEY, C.J., and STONE, J., concur.
WARNER, J., concurs specially with opinion.