in their own behalf to establish that their co-defendant, Winn-Dixie, had the primary responsibility for any negligence — not G & I or Equity One. Respondents contend that trial counsel’s testimony will be adverse to his own client insofar as she is claiming negligence on their part. In Arcara, we quashed an order of disqualification because the opposing party, rather than the client, intended to call the lawyer as a witness. 574 So.2d at 326. “The requirement that a lawyer withdraw when he expects to be a witness was not intended to permit an opposing party to call him as a witness and disqualify him from serving as counsel.” AlliedSignal Recovery Trust v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 934 So.2d 675, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see also Devins v. Peitzer, 622 So.2d 558, 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (<HOLDING>). A conflict requiring disqualification,
holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to call a witness where the defendant never provided the witnesss name to counsel and no evidence existed that counsel had any notice of the witnesss identity holding that an adverse inference cannot be drawn from a defendants failure to call a witness if the states evidence establishes that the witness is an accomplice who would be entitled to assert a fifth amendment privilege holding that the failure of defense counsel to call a corroborating witness resulted in prejudice to the defendant holding that the clients right to its chosen counsel superseded the opposing partys right to call that counsel as a witness when there were other witnesses available to testify to the same facts holding that defendants announced intention to call plaintiffs counsel as a witness is not a basis for disqualification