Staff Reports
Jay Odom, a longtime business and civic leader in Okaloosa County who has been actively engaged in community development and statewide issues, has filed a motion to disqualify the law firm Beggs & Lane from representing Robert Smith in a lawsuit alleging a yearslong campaign of legal and governmental manipulation.
The motion, filed late last week in Okaloosa County Circuit Court, argues that Beggs & Lane should be removed from the case due to conflicts of interest, specifically Smith’s selection and manipulation of the firm following the disqualification of Smith’s prior counsel at the Clark Partington law firm for violating a duty of loyalty to Odom, Clark Partington’s former client.
The lawsuit itself accuses Smith and unnamed co-conspirators of civil RICO violations, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy in a scheme to bribe and extort public officials and weaponize government agencies and the legal system against Odom and co-plaintiff Okaloosa Airports Director Tracy Stage.
“This lawsuit is about finally bringing to light what I have endured for more than 18 years,” Odom said. “Smith and his allies have waged a relentless campaign of harassment, intimidation and threats, using the courts and government agencies as weapons to advance their own financial interests. Their goal has always been the same—to tear me down by any means necessary. This motion is just one step toward restoring fairness and accountability.”
Odom’s legal team argues that Beggs & Lane’s prior representation of Smith in related cases gives the firm an unfair informational advantage, violating Florida ethics rules.
A community leader with a record of civic engagement
Odom is widely recognized and respected for his role in quality real estate development and positive economic growth in Okaloosa County, with major projects that have supported local businesses, military personnel and tourism. Beyond his work in development, he has been active in civic initiatives and engaged in discussions about economic and infrastructure issues affecting the region and the state.
That visibility has also made him a target for legal and political attacks, the most serious and persistent of which he claims is an ongoing orchestrated effort by Smith and his associates to manipulate public agencies and use the courts as tools for personal gain.
The lawsuit details how the defendants allegedly attempted to bribe and extort Stage, threatened violence, and spread false claims to remove those who stood in their way.
A pattern of conflict in the courts
This is not the first time a law firm representing Smith has faced allegations of conflicts of interest.
In a previous case, the 1st District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s disqualification of the Clark Partington law firm from representing Smith after a judge found that the firm violated its duty of loyalty to Odom, its former client.
Now, Odom argues that Beggs & Lane played a similar role in Smith’s efforts to weaponize government agencies and the courts. Specifically, the firm sought to have Odom investigated by filing a False Claims Act lawsuit against him in 2019, accusing him of financial misconduct tied to the Hammock Bay development. Two months later, on Smith’s behalf, Clark Partington filed a similar False Claims Act case against Odom and Okaloosa County that was later dismissed by a federal judge, who found the allegations amounted to “nothing more than gossip” rather than evidence.
According to Odom’s motion, Beggs & Lane became entangled in Smith’s legal maneuvers, raising ethical concerns about its continued involvement in the case. The motion asserts that Smith used Beggs & Lane to pursue legal actions that other firms, including Clark Partington, were ethically barred from filing due to conflicts.
Legal team argues disqualification is necessary
“Florida law prohibits a law firm from gaining an unfair informational advantage over its opponent,” said Lazaro P. Fields, Odom’s attorney who successfully defended President Donald J. Trump in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. “Fundamental fairness and the integrity of our adversarial judicial process require the avoidance of even an appearance of impropriety.”
Odom’s attorneys argue that Beggs & Lane’s access to Odom’s confidential information creates an appearance of impropriety, necessitating the firm’s removal from the case under Florida law.
What’s next?
Beggs & Lane has not yet responded to the motion, and the court is expected to rule on the issue in the coming weeks.
If the motion to disqualify his attorneys is granted, Smith must secure new legal representation.
As the legal fight continues, it is expected to draw even more attention given Odom’s standing as a business and civic leader in the region—and the broader questions it raises about the use of lawfare and government weaponization as a tool for economic and political influence.
