Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 Florida opinions name it 4 courts 1983–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pouncy v. Stategreen2 sentences1986Such expert shall report only to the attorney for the defendant and matters related to the expert shall be deemed to fall under the lawyer-client privilege. [Emphasis supplied.] Rule 3.216(a) codified the court's holding in Pouncy v. State, 353 So.2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), that where an expert is hired solely to assist the defense and will not be called as a witness, the state may not depose the expert or call him as a witness. 1983Even as to the insanity defense, the trial court’s order that selected portions of the psychiatric reports be sent only to appellant does not satisfy the language that an expert “shall report only to attorney for the defendant” and that appellant’s evaluation “shall be deemed to fall under the lawyer-client privilege.” Cf. Pouncy v. State, 353 So.2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (doctrine of attorney-client privilege bars the state from deposing and calling as witnesses psychiatrists hired by the defendant for the sole purpose of aiding in preparation of an insanity defense). | 1 | 4 |
Coffey-Garcia and Garcia v. South Miami Hospital, Inc.green1 sentence2017See Coffey-Garcia v. S. Miami Hosp., Inc., 194 So. 3d 533, 537-38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (recognizing that because the lawyer-client privilege set forth in section 90.502 “protects only communications to and from a lawyer,” the plaintiff in a malpractice action could be compelled to answer 7 deposition questions regarding “the names of the attorneys whom she consulted with” in pursuing her claim). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Mardengreen1 sentence2016This subsection simply disallows the privilege in favor of the policies stated above”) (internal citation omitted); In re Estate of Marden, 355 So.2d 121, 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (holding that “[a]n attorney’s testimony about a Will drafted by him, after the death of the testator, is not ordinarily privileged.”) Petitioner’s assertion that the statements made to him by the testator are “confidential” under Rule 4-1.6, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, is unavailing in this circumstance. | 1 | 1 |
Modern Woodmen of America v. Watkinsgreen1 sentence2007Thus, the lawyer-client privilege "does not extend to every statement made to a lawyer." Modern Woodmen of Am. v. Watkins, 132 F.2d 352, 354 (5th Cir. 1942). | 1 | 1 |
Paskoski v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2004See Paskoski v. Johnson, 626 So.2d 338, 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Rose v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Rose v. State, 591 So.2d 195, 197 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). *263 Historically, the rule was a codification of Pouncy v. State, 353 So.2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), and has since been interpreted to mean that "the state could not make a confidential expert its witness when the attorney/client privilege had not been waived." Lovette v. State, 636 So.2d 1304, 1307 (Fla.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Lovette v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Rose v. State, 591 So.2d 195, 197 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). *263 Historically, the rule was a codification of Pouncy v. State, 353 So.2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), and has since been interpreted to mean that "the state could not make a confidential expert its witness when the attorney/client privilege had not been waived." Lovette v. State, 636 So.2d 1304, 1307 (Fla.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Procacci v. Seitlingreen1 sentence1995See, e.g., Procacci v. Seitlin, 497 So.2d 969 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (attorney-client privilege waived by client's suit for malpractice). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zorc v. City of Vero Beach
green
2 sentences2009Fla. 93-53 (1993). 17 722 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). 18 722 So. 2d at 901 , quoting Final Bill Analysis Economic Impact Statement, CS/HB 491, Florida House of Representatives Committee on Governmental Operations (1993). 19 See, e.g., Freeman v. Times Publishing Company , 696 So. 2d 427 , 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ("settlement negotiations" did not encompass a 25-year-old final judgment; while it was still a pending suit, it was not in the posture to be settled before judgment or pending appeal); Brown v. City of Lauderhill , 654 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (city attorney may meet in priva 2009Fla. 93-53 (1993). 17 722 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). 18 722 So. 2d at 901 , quoting Final Bill Analysis Economic Impact Statement, CS/HB 491, Florida House of Representatives Committee on Governmental Operations (1993). 19 See, e.g., Freeman v. Times Publishing Company , 696 So. 2d 427 , 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ("settlement negotiations" did not encompass a 25-year-old final judgment; while it was still a pending suit, it was not in the posture to be settled before judgment or pending appeal); Brown v. City of Lauderhill , 654 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (city attorney may meet in priva | 2 | 2001–2009 |
School Bd. of Duval Cty. v. Fla. Pub. Co.
green
2 sentences2001I , s. 24 , Fla. Const. (access to public records and meetings). 2 See, s. 1, Ch. 93-232, Laws of Florida, effective June 30, 1993, which added subsection (8) to s. 286.011 , Fla. Stat. 3 Cf ., s. 90.502 , Fla. Stat., recognizing a lawyer-client privilege under the Florida Evidence Code. 4 See, City of Dunnellon v. Aran , 662 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); School Board of Duval County v. Florida Publishing Company , 670 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). 5 670 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). 6 Staff of Fla.H.R.Comm. on Government Operations, CS/HB 491 (1993) Final Bill Analysis Economic Impact State 2001I , s. 24 , Fla. Const. (access to public records and meetings). 2 See, s. 1, Ch. 93-232, Laws of Florida, effective June 30, 1993, which added subsection (8) to s. 286.011 , Fla. Stat. 3 Cf ., s. 90.502 , Fla. Stat., recognizing a lawyer-client privilege under the Florida Evidence Code. 4 See, City of Dunnellon v. Aran , 662 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); School Board of Duval County v. Florida Publishing Company , 670 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). 5 670 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). 6 Staff of Fla.H.R.Comm. on Government Operations, CS/HB 491 (1993) Final Bill Analysis Economic Impact State | 2 | 1999–2001 |
City of Dunnellon v. Aran
green
2 sentences2001I , s. 24 , Fla. Const. (access to public records and meetings). 2 See, s. 1, Ch. 93-232, Laws of Florida, effective June 30, 1993, which added subsection (8) to s. 286.011 , Fla. Stat. 3 Cf ., s. 90.502 , Fla. Stat., recognizing a lawyer-client privilege under the Florida Evidence Code. 4 See, City of Dunnellon v. Aran , 662 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); School Board of Duval County v. Florida Publishing Company , 670 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). 5 670 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). 6 Staff of Fla.H.R.Comm. on Government Operations, CS/HB 491 (1993) Final Bill Analysis Economic Impact State 1999Sincerely, Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General RAB/tls 1 Attorney General Opinion 94-33 (1994). 2 Cf., s. 90.502 , Fla. Stat., recognizing a lawyer-client privilege under the Florida Evidence Code. 3 Attorney General Opinion 93-53 (1993). 4 See, City of Dunnellon v. Aran , 662 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, 224 So.2d 693 , 699 (Fla. 1969). 5 See, School Board of Duval County v. Florida Publishing Company , 670 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Ops. | 2 | 1999–2001 |
Board of Public Instruction of Broward Cty. v. Doran
green
2 sentences1999Sincerely, Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General RAB/tls 1 Attorney General Opinion 94-33 (1994). 2 Cf., s. 90.502 , Fla. Stat., recognizing a lawyer-client privilege under the Florida Evidence Code. 3 Attorney General Opinion 93-53 (1993). 4 See, City of Dunnellon v. Aran , 662 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, 224 So.2d 693 , 699 (Fla. 1969). 5 See, School Board of Duval County v. Florida Publishing Company , 670 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Ops. 1995Fla. 93-53 (1993), in which the terms and intent of s. 286.011 (8), Fla. Stat., are discussed. 3 Cf., s. 90.502 , Fla. Stat. (1993), recognizing a lawyer-client privilege under the Florida Evidence Code. 4 See, Thayer v. State, 335 So.2d 815 , 817 (Fla. 1976); Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, 56 So.2d 341 , 342 (Fla. 1952); Ideal Farms Drainage District v. Certain Lands, 19 So.2d 234 (Fla. 1944). 5 See, e.g., Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, 224 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1969); Op. Att'y Gen. | 2 | 1995–1999 |
Tripp v. Salkovitz
green
2 sentences2014In chapter 2011-183, section 1, Laws of Florida, the Legislature enacted section 90.5021, Florida Statutes, which establishes a “fiduciary lawyer-client privilege.” According to • the Committee, whether a fiduciary is entitled to the lawyer-client privilege when the fiduciary employs an attorney in connection with his or her fiduciary duties has been an issue in several cases; for example, the Committee cites Jacob v. Barton, 877 So.2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), and Tripp v. Salkovitz, 919 So.2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). 2014In chapter 2011-183, section 1, Laws of Florida, the Legislature enacted section 90.5021, Florida Statutes, which establishes a “fiduciary lawyer-client privilege.” According to the Committee, whether a fiduciary is entitled to the lawyer-client privilege when the fiduciary employs an attorney in connection with his or her fiduciary duties has been an issue in several cases; for example, the Committee cites Jacob v. Barton, 877 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), and Tripp v. Salkovitz, 919 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Jacob v. Barton
green
2 sentences2014In chapter 2011-183, section 1, Laws of Florida, the Legislature enacted section 90.5021, Florida Statutes, which establishes a “fiduciary lawyer-client privilege.” According to • the Committee, whether a fiduciary is entitled to the lawyer-client privilege when the fiduciary employs an attorney in connection with his or her fiduciary duties has been an issue in several cases; for example, the Committee cites Jacob v. Barton, 877 So.2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), and Tripp v. Salkovitz, 919 So.2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). 2014In chapter 2011-183, section 1, Laws of Florida, the Legislature enacted section 90.5021, Florida Statutes, which establishes a “fiduciary lawyer-client privilege.” According to the Committee, whether a fiduciary is entitled to the lawyer-client privilege when the fiduciary employs an attorney in connection with his or her fiduciary duties has been an issue in several cases; for example, the Committee cites Jacob v. Barton, 877 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), and Tripp v. Salkovitz, 919 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Freeman v. Times Pub. Co.
green
1 sentence2009Fla. 93-53 (1993). 17 722 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). 18 722 So. 2d at 901 , quoting Final Bill Analysis Economic Impact Statement, CS/HB 491, Florida House of Representatives Committee on Governmental Operations (1993). 19 See, e.g., Freeman v. Times Publishing Company , 696 So. 2d 427 , 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ("settlement negotiations" did not encompass a 25-year-old final judgment; while it was still a pending suit, it was not in the posture to be settled before judgment or pending appeal); Brown v. City of Lauderhill , 654 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (city attorney may meet in priva | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Brown v. City of Lauderhill
green
1 sentence2009Fla. 93-53 (1993). 17 722 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). 18 722 So. 2d at 901 , quoting Final Bill Analysis Economic Impact Statement, CS/HB 491, Florida House of Representatives Committee on Governmental Operations (1993). 19 See, e.g., Freeman v. Times Publishing Company , 696 So. 2d 427 , 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ("settlement negotiations" did not encompass a 25-year-old final judgment; while it was still a pending suit, it was not in the posture to be settled before judgment or pending appeal); Brown v. City of Lauderhill , 654 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (city attorney may meet in priva | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Ideal Farms Drainage District v. Certain Lands
green
1 sentence1995Fla. 93-53 (1993), in which the terms and intent of s. 286.011 (8), Fla. Stat., are discussed. 3 Cf., s. 90.502 , Fla. Stat. (1993), recognizing a lawyer-client privilege under the Florida Evidence Code. 4 See, Thayer v. State, 335 So.2d 815 , 817 (Fla. 1976); Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, 56 So.2d 341 , 342 (Fla. 1952); Ideal Farms Drainage District v. Certain Lands, 19 So.2d 234 (Fla. 1944). 5 See, e.g., Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, 224 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1969); Op. Att'y Gen. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel
green
1 sentence1995Fla. 93-53 (1993), in which the terms and intent of s. 286.011 (8), Fla. Stat., are discussed. 3 Cf., s. 90.502 , Fla. Stat. (1993), recognizing a lawyer-client privilege under the Florida Evidence Code. 4 See, Thayer v. State, 335 So.2d 815 , 817 (Fla. 1976); Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, 56 So.2d 341 , 342 (Fla. 1952); Ideal Farms Drainage District v. Certain Lands, 19 So.2d 234 (Fla. 1944). 5 See, e.g., Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, 224 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1969); Op. Att'y Gen. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Thayer v. State
green
1 sentence1995Fla. 93-53 (1993), in which the terms and intent of s. 286.011 (8), Fla. Stat., are discussed. 3 Cf., s. 90.502 , Fla. Stat. (1993), recognizing a lawyer-client privilege under the Florida Evidence Code. 4 See, Thayer v. State, 335 So.2d 815 , 817 (Fla. 1976); Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, 56 So.2d 341 , 342 (Fla. 1952); Ideal Farms Drainage District v. Certain Lands, 19 So.2d 234 (Fla. 1944). 5 See, e.g., Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, 224 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1969); Op. Att'y Gen. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Ursry v. State
green
1 sentence1986This court followed Pouncy in Ursry v. State, 428 So.2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 438 So.2d 834 (Fla. 1983). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. City of North Miami
green
1 sentence1985The Court voiced concern about the wisdom of such a police, but stated if there is to be a lawyer-client privilege exemption from the Public Records Act, the legislature would have to enact an exemption. 452 So.2d at 574 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Sherer v. Rubin Memorial Chapel, Ltd.
green
1 sentence1985Miami Herald, 452 So.2d 574 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Wait v. Florida Power & Light Co.
green
1 sentence1984Wait v. Florida Power & Light Co., 372 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1979); see § 119.07(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1981). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Witt v. State
green
1 sentence1984He contends that this rule change was a change in the law sufficient to meet the test announced by this Court in Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1067 , 101 S.Ct. 796 , 66 L.Ed.2d 612 (1980). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Adams v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
green
1 sentence1984He contends that this rule change was a change in the law sufficient to meet the test announced by this Court in Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1067 , 101 S.Ct. 796 , 66 L.Ed.2d 612 (1980). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Jarrett v. Jarrett
green
1 sentence1984He contends that this rule change was a change in the law sufficient to meet the test announced by this Court in Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1067 , 101 S.Ct. 796 , 66 L.Ed.2d 612 (1980). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Hamilton v. Davis
neutral
1 sentence1983The Fifth District has already addressed this provision in Hamilton v. Davis, 427 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.