that Stearns Weaver, which solely represented Publix, had access to confidential irrelevant information that would not otherwise have been available. Disqualification of a party’s chosen counsel is a drastic remedy that should be used sparingly. Alexander v. Tandem Staffing Solutions, Inc., 881 So.2d 607, 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); see also Gutierrez v. Rubio, 126 So.3d 320, 2013 WL 1316383 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 3, 2013). The party seeking disqualification has the burden of showing that it is necessary because of actual harm. Coral Reef of Key Biscayne Developers v. Lloyd's Underwriters at London, 911 So.2d 155, 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Disqualification is not appropriate if lesser alternatives can alleviate the harm. Id.; Esquire Care, Inc. v. Maguire, 532 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (<HOLDING>). We agree with petitioners that the
holding that an agreement in which one party promised to make monthly payments to the other partys attorney as part of an asset sale contract was for the direct benefit of the attorney holding that a contracting party cannot be allowed to use his own breach to gain an advantage by impairing the rights that the contract confers on the other party recognizing that before ordering disqualification the trial court should determine whether one party has obtained an unfair advantage over the other which can only be alleviated by removal of the attorney citations omitted holding under arkansas rule of professional conduct 37 that party seeking disqualification of an attorney must demonstrate that the attorney has personal knowledge which is unobtainable elsewhere holding that in order to determine whether disqualification of plaintiffs attorney is appropriate because of a previous attorneyclient relationship he had with the defendant the court must determine whether confidential information was passed from client to attorney