from employment under [the conflict-of-interest rules], no partner or associate of his or his firm may accept or continue such representation.”); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stansbury, 374 So.2d 1051, 1053 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct.App.1979). For this reason, "if one attorney in a firm has an actual conflict of interest, we impute that conflict to all the attorneys in the firm.” Ross, 33 F.3d at 1523; see also R. Regulating the Fla. Bar 4-1.10(a) ("While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any 1 of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by [the rules of confidentiality and conflict of interest].’’). 75 .Whether the law firm actually learned of the facts during the first representation is immaterial. See Duncan, 646 F.2d at 1028 (<HOLDING>); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575
holding for  1983 actions that although state law determines the limitations period federal law determines when the claim arises holding that federal law determines definition of executory contract but that state law determines whether a material breach of the contract could occur holding that for disqualification purposes once court determines that representations were substantially related it must irrebuttably presume that relevant confidential information was disclosed during the former period of representation holding that while state law determines the existence of a claim federal law determines when a claim arises for bankruptcy purposes holding that state law determines when perfection occurs for purposes of the preference avoidance provision of the bankruptcy code