The Florida Bar

Ethics Opinion

Opinion 72-17

June 28, 1972
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
The former law partner of a hospital president is not precluded from representing defendant
physicians in a suit brought against them by another physician alleging conspiracy to deny him staff
privileges, if neither of the former partners represented the plaintiff during the period in question.

66-60, 67-16, 68-10, 69-32, 71-14

Committeeman Zehmer stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar inquires whether he is precluded by ethical
considerations from representing one doctor (hereinafter referred to as Defendant) in
an action brought by another doctor (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) because of
the circumstances described below.
In February 1969, the medical staff of a hospital voted, while Defendant was a
member of the hospital staff, to deny staff privileges to Plaintiff. The following
month, the hospital terminated the staff privileges of Defendant for reasons not
considered by the committee. This action generated extensive litigation between
Defendant and the hospital. Several months after Defendant’s dismissal from the
hospital staff, there was a medical staff reorganization and Plaintiff was then
admitted to staff privileges by the hospital. At the time these events occurred, the
inquiring attorney’s partner was president of the hospital and chairman of the
hospital’s board of directors. On July 15, 1969, some four months after the initial
controversy between the hospital and Defendant arose, the inquiring attorney
withdrew from this partnership and set up his own practice.
After the litigation between Defendant and the hospital had been concluded and
Plaintiff had been granted staff privileges, Plaintiff brought an action against
Defendant for conspiracy by Defendant and other doctors to keep Plaintiff off the
medical staff of the hospital. The inquiring attorney has been retained by Defendant
and these doctors to defend them in that action. Plaintiff objects to the inquiring
attorney’s representing Defendant, asserting that his prior status as a partner of the
hospital president during the period from February to July 1969 presents a conflict of
interest which precludes the inquiring attorney from ethically representing
Certainly there would be no ethical proscription on the inquirer’s representing Defendant, if
Plaintiff should give his consent. But, in view of Plaintiff’s objections, the critical issue is whether
the inquiring attorney or his former partner had access to confidential or privileged information
relating to Plaintiff’s claim during the time the inquirer was a partner of the hospital’s president.
The inquiring attorney and his former partner both disclaim that the former partnership
represented Plaintiff during this period of time and also deny that the inquiring attorney received or

had access to any confidential or privileged information which related to Plaintiff’s claims of
conspiracy. For purposes of this opinion, the committee assumes these representations to be true, as
the committee does not undertake to decide issues of fact.
Since the inquiring attorney did not receive or have access to such confidential or privileged
information, it is the committee’s opinion that the inquiring attorney is not precluded by ethical
considerations from representing Defendant in this action. See Florida Opinions 66-60, 67-16,
68-10, and 69-32. However, the Committee does caution the inquiring attorney that the
circumstances of his representation in this case are likely to subject him to suspicion and adverse
criticism, and that he must exercise utmost good faith and be absolutely certain that his former
partner did not provide legal representation to Plaintiff during the time in question and did not gain
any privileged or confidential information from Plaintiff or the hospital concerning the matters now
in dispute. Any such disclosure to the inquiring attorney’s former partner during the period while
the inquirer was a member of that firm also would disqualify the inquiring attorney from continuing
the representation of Defendant, whether or not he personally received such information.
One member of the Committee, referring to Florida Opinion 71-14, feels that the inquiring
attorney would be better advised to discontinue the representation unless he can obtain consent from
Plaintiff to continue his representation of Defendant.