Asking the court to disqualify a lawyer

It is the request that the court remove the other side's lawyer — or, in some cases, one's own — from the case for conduct that obstructs the sound administration of justice or breaches their duties. Since Act 22-2026, the rule expressly states what the court must consider before deciding.

A party to the suit. The first of the five criteria is precisely whether whoever requests the disqualification has standing to invoke it, so that is the first filter. The Court may also disqualify on its own motion, without anyone asking.

• Having standing to invoke the disqualification. It is the first of the five criteria the rule directs the court to weigh.Verified against the official source
• That the conduct alleged obstruct the sound administration of justice or breach the lawyer's duties to the Court, their clients or fellow lawyers.Verified against the official source
• That the motion not be used as a mechanism to delay the proceedings. The rule lists this as a criterion against it.Verified against the official source

• The rule publishes no document list or form. Disqualification is sought by motion inside the suit, and what counts is the evidence of the conduct alleged.

1. 1

   Step 1: Know what the court can do and why

   Rule 9.3 starts from the premise that a lawyer appearing at any hearing, conference or proceeding without being duly prepared may be considered conduct obstructing the sound administration of justice. On that basis the Court, exercising its inherent power to supervise the conduct of lawyers appearing before it, may — on its own motion or at a party's request — impose monetary or other sanctions, or disqualify.

2. 2

   Step 2: Prepare for the five criteria

   When a party requests it, the Court shall conduct a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis under these criteria: (1) whether whoever requests the disqualification has standing to invoke it; (2) the seriousness of the possible ethical violation involved; (3) the complexity of the law or facts relevant to the controversy and the expertise of the lawyers involved; (4) the stage of the proceedings at which the disqualification controversy arises and its possible effect on the just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of the case; and (5) whether the motion is being used as a mechanism to delay the proceedings.

3. 3

   Step 3: Expect the timing to matter

   Two of the five criteria watch the clock: the stage of the proceedings at which the controversy arises and its effect on the just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of the case, and whether the motion is being used to delay. Asking late, or asking when the main effect would be to stall the suit, cuts against whoever asks.

4. 4

   Step 4: If you are the one facing disqualification, you have a right to defend yourself

   The law added an express safeguard: to guarantee due process of law, before ruling on the disqualification motion the Court must give the affected party facing disqualification an opportunity to present evidence in their defence. Hearing them is no longer discretionary: the rule requires it.

By motion inside the suit itself, before the court hearing it. It is not a separate proceeding or a complaint to another forum.

• Using the motion to buy time: the fifth criterion is, literally, whether it is being used as a mechanism to delay the proceedings.
• Asking without standing: that is the first criterion the court must weigh.
• Leaving it to the end of the suit: the stage at which the controversy arises and its effect on the speedy and inexpensive resolution of the case is another criterion.
• Believing the court rules without hearing the lawyer named: the rule now requires giving them an opportunity to present evidence in their defence.
• Thinking disqualification is the only outcome: the rule lets the court impose monetary or other sanctions in addition to, or instead of, disqualifying.

These are the government pages this guide is based on.

• Poder Judicial de Puerto Rico

  Poder Judicial

  bvirtualogp.pr.gov