Despite doubts raised by legal experts and a ruling from PolitiFact calling the claim "barely true," state Senator Dave Aronberg is sticking by his assertion that his Democratic primary opponent for attorney general may be unable to represent the state in claims against BP.

"It's possible that the next attorney general, if it’s Dan Gelber, would not even be able to lead our state's lawsuit against BP, because he worked for months for BP's law firm," Aronberg said.

Here's the background on the claim: It is true that the law firm where state Sen. Gelber worked has been hired by BP. Aronberg says the conflict of interest could keep Gelber from leading the effort to extract damages from BP.

Gelber says he was just one employee of a big law firm, did not work on the BP case, and resigned soon after he found out about it.

"I was at a 500-person law firm. I was affiliated as an 'of counsel,' (and) wasn't a shareholder," Gelber said.

"Within three weeks of learning about it, I walked away from the law firm, I walked away from my salary. Even the Florida bar, which issues opinions on this, said there's no conflict," Gelber said.

PolitiFact Florida editor John Bartosek says it depends on how much Dan Gelber knew, if anything, about the law firm's business with BP.

"Gelber is adamant that he did not know anything at all: he didn't participate in any discussions, he didn't read any memos. He stayed far away from the issue," Bartosek said.

Since there's no evidence to contradict Gelber's claim that he knew nothing about BP's case, the legal experts contacted by PolitiFact Florida said it was unlikely that as attorney general, Gelber would be taken off the BP lawsuit.

But it is possible. Ultimately, BP would have to challenge Gelber in court, and a judge would have to make that decision.

In an interview with WUSF's "Florida Matters," Aronberg continued to defend his assertion , comparing it to people who said the oil drilling in the Gulf was completely safe.

“They said that the oil spill itself would be very unlikely, that would never happen, and it did," Aronberg said.

He pointed out that not all the experts in PolitiFact's article were completely negative about his claim.

"They didn’t say it was very unlikely. There was at least one scholar in the article that said it was possibly true," Aronberg said. “It just depends on the facts."

Bartosek said the burden of proof is on Aronberg, who admits he has none.

"At the moment, it does strike us as more of a scare tactic than a serious concern," Bartosek said.