← Case library
3rd DCAMarch 31, 2021Petitions for Writ of Prohibition Granted in Part, Denied in Part⭐ Notable

Afanasiev v. Romero Alvarez

Case No. 20-1556

After a trial judge filed a pending Florida Bar complaint against three of a litigant's attorneys — based on an erroneous representation made in an appellate filing that counsel promptly retracted — the Third District granted prohibition and disqualified the judge from presiding over the litigant's dissolution, domestic violence, and malicious prosecution cases. The court rejected the separate 'material witness' ground for disqualification, holding it highly unlikely the judge could be compelled to testify about proceedings she presided over. It also excused the failure to file a successive disqualification motion below as futile.

Key facts

  • Litigant Afanasiev challenged disqualification of a trial judge who had filed a Florida Bar complaint against three of Afanasiev's attorneys based on an erroneous representation in an appellate filing that counsel promptly retracted.
  • The trial judge denied Afanasiev's initial motion to disqualify her and subsequently filed the Bar complaint the same day, leading Afanasiev to seek prohibition in the Third District without filing a successive disqualification motion below.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This is one of the few Florida decisions finding disqualification warranted based on a judge's Bar complaint against counsel, mapping the line between Padovano (mere reporting insufficient) and Kline (veracity-focused… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.