Igor Stolyar v. Dr. Leonard Hochstein, etc.

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 17, 2025.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1146
Lower Tribunal No. 24-3930-CA-01
________________
Igor Stolyar ,
Appellant,
vs.
Dr. Leonard Hochstein, etc. ,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Lisa S. Walsh, Judge.
Barry S. Turner, P.A., and Barry S. Turner, for appellant.
Berkeley Law, P.A., and Lorne E. Berkeley (Cooper City), for appellee.
Before EMAS, LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Young v. Achenbauch, 136 So. 3d 575, 581 (Fla. 2014)
(“The standard of review for orders entered on motions to disqualify counsel

2
is that of an abuse of discretion. While the trial court’s discretion is limited by
the applicable legal principles, the appellate court will not substitute its
judgment for the trial court’s express or implied findings of fact which are
supported 	by 	competent 	substantial 	evidence.” 	(quotation 	omitted));
Comments, R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.9 (“Matters are ‘substantially related’
for purposes of this rule if they involve the same transaction or legal dispute,
or if the current matter would involve the lawyer attacking work that the
lawyer performed for the former client.”); Gonzalez ex rel. Colonial Bank v.
Chillura, 892 So. 2d 1075, 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (rejecting argument that
Florida 	Rule 	of 	Professional 	Conduct 	4-1.7 	required 	disqualification 	of
plaintiff’s counsel in shareholder derivative action on behalf of company
where same counsel also represented plaintiff individually in direct actions
against company); cf. FlexFunds Holdings, LLC v. Rivero, 341 So. 3d 478,
482 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (affirming disqualification of counsel in action
between 	shareholders 	where 	counsel 	previously 	represented 	both
organization and plaintiff shareholder and instant action involved both direct
and derivative claims).