SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The trial court disqualified the plaintiff's counsel because he held a presuit meeting with representatives of the defendants. The order was entered notwithstanding an unresolved conflict as to whether the meeting was essentially a "job interview" which concerned only the lawyer's abilities to serve as their counsel in the upcoming litigation — which would not require disqualification; or also included discussion of the legal matters involved in the case, resulting in an attorney-client relationship and thus an irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed — which would. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So.2d 630 (Fla. 1991); Keir v. State, 152 Fla. 389, 11 So.2d 886 (1943); see also Garner v. Somberg, 672 So.2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Because an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve this decisive issue, School Brd. of Broward Co. v. Polera Building Corp., 722 So.2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Stansbury, 374 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979); Holland v. Tenenbaum, 360 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), the order of disqualification is quashed with directions for the trial court to conduct that hearing and for further appropriate proceedings thereafter.
Certiorari granted.