90.502
Lawyer-client privilege.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
90.502 Lawyer-client privilege.—
(1) For purposes of this section:
(a) A “lawyer” is a person authorized, or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized, to practice law in any state or nation.
(b) A “client” is any person, public officer, corporation, association, or other organization or entity, either public or private, who consults a lawyer with the purpose of obtaining legal services or who is rendered legal services by a lawyer.
(c) A communication between lawyer and client is “confidential” if it is not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than:
1. Those to whom disclosure is in furtherance of the rendition of legal services to the client.
2. Those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication.
(2) A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, the contents of confidential communications when such other person learned of the communications because they were made in the rendition of legal services to the client.
(3) The privilege may be claimed by:
(a) The client.
(b) A guardian or conservator of the client.
(c) The personal representative of a deceased client.
(d) A successor, assignee, trustee in dissolution, or any similar representative of an organization, corporation, or association or other entity, either public or private, whether or not in existence.
(e) The lawyer, but only on behalf of the client. The lawyer’s authority to claim the privilege is presumed in the absence of contrary evidence.
(4) There is no lawyer-client privilege under this section when:
(a) The services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew was a crime or fraud.
(b) A communication is relevant to an issue between parties who claim through the same deceased client.
(c) A communication is relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to the client or by the client to the lawyer, arising from the lawyer-client relationship.
(d) A communication is relevant to an issue concerning the intention or competence of a client executing an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness, or concerning the execution or attestation of the document.
(e) A communication is relevant to a matter of common interest between two or more clients, or their successors in interest, if the communication was made by any of them to a lawyer retained or consulted in common when offered in a civil action between the clients or their successors in interest.
(5) Communications made by a person who seeks or receives services from the Department of Revenue under the child support enforcement program to the attorney representing the department shall be confidential and privileged as provided for in this section. Such communications shall not be disclosed to anyone other than the agency except as provided for in this section. Such disclosures shall be protected as if there were an attorney-client relationship between the attorney for the agency and the person who seeks services from the department.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379; s. 16, ch. 92-138; s. 12, ch. 94-124; s. 1378, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 2000-316.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 252
cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Heather Worley v. Central Florida Young Men's Christian, etc.
Heather Worley v. Central Florida Young Men's Christian, etc. (2017)
“It is governed by the Florida Evidence Code, codified at section 90.502, Florida Statutes (2015). Under the Florida Evidence Code, A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, the contents of confidential communications when…”
Maplewood Partners, L.P. v. Indian Harbor Insurance (2013)
“Fla. Stat. § 90.502 (1), (2). 136 The attorney-client privilege is far from absolute.”
Traylor v. State (1992)
“§ 90.502, Fla. Stat. (1985). Throughout the suppression hearing below, the trial court recognized this fact and consistently ruled that Johnson could not be required to testify about conversations with his client, a fact the majority itself acknowledges.”
XL SPECIALTY INS. v. Aircraft Holdings (2006)
“Therefore, those documents are protected from disclosure by the privilege as provided in section 90.502, Florida Statutes (2005). We agree with XL that the trial court should have conducted an in camera inspection of the documents at issue and excluded attorney-client privileged…”
Genovese v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co. (2011)
“Contrary to Genovese's suggestion, our holding in Ruiz does not apply to attorney-client privileged communications in first-party bad faith actions.”
Lee v. Condell and Estache (2016)
“” § 90.502, Fla. Stat. Ann. (West 1999) (Law Revision Council Note — 1976).”
McWatters v. State (2010)
“Section 90.502, Florida Statutes (2006), establishes a statutory privilege for communications between a client and his or her lawyer.”
First Union Nat. Bank v. Turney (2001)
“§ 90.502, Fla. Stat. (1987). The "crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.”
Progressive Exp. Ins. Co. v. Scoma (2007)
“Courtney against the company, nothing in section 90.502 would suggest that Progressive loses the statutory privilege merely because Ms.”
Randy W. Tundidor v. State of Florida (2017)
“Privileged Statements Tundidor asserts that the trial court erred when it concluded that Junior’s statements to Junior’s attorney during a meeting with Tundidor and Tundidor’s attorney were privileged.”
Coffey-Garcia and Garcia v. South Miami Hospital, Inc. (2016)
“The right as it pertains to disclosure in judicial and administrative hearings, technically referred to as the “attorney-client privilege,” is governed by the Florida Evidence Code, codified at section 90.502, Florida Statutes (2013). The right as it pertains to disclosure…”
State v. Rabin (1986)
“ (1) For purposes of this section: (a) A "lawyer" is a person authorized, or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized, to practice law in any state or nation. (b) A "client" is any person, public officer, corporation, association, or other organization or entity,…”
— 90.502(1) — 5 cases
Gerheiser v. Stephens (1998)
— 90.502(1)(b) — 15 cases
State v. Rabin (1986)
“ (1) For purposes of this section: (a) A "lawyer" is a person authorized, or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized, to practice law in any state or nation. (b) A "client" is any person, public officer, corporation, association, or other organization or entity,…”
State v. Branham (2007)
— 90.502(1)(c) — 27 cases
Heather Worley v. Central Florida Young Men's Christian, etc. (2017)
“It is governed by the Florida Evidence Code, codified at section 90.502, Florida Statutes (2015). Under the Florida Evidence Code, A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, the contents of confidential communications when…”
Mobley v. State (1982)
Black v. State (2006)
— 90.502(1)(e) — 1 case
— 90.502(2) — 55 cases
Heather Worley v. Central Florida Young Men's Christian, etc. (2017)
“It is governed by the Florida Evidence Code, codified at section 90.502, Florida Statutes (2015). Under the Florida Evidence Code, A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, the contents of confidential communications when…”
Genovese v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co. (2011)
“Contrary to Genovese's suggestion, our holding in Ruiz does not apply to attorney-client privileged communications in first-party bad faith actions.”
Coffey-Garcia and Garcia v. South Miami Hospital, Inc. (2016)
“The right as it pertains to disclosure in judicial and administrative hearings, technically referred to as the “attorney-client privilege,” is governed by the Florida Evidence Code, codified at section 90.502, Florida Statutes (2013). The right as it pertains to disclosure…”
Progressive Exp. Ins. Co. v. Scoma (2007)
“Courtney against the company, nothing in section 90.502 would suggest that Progressive loses the statutory privilege merely because Ms.”
— 90.502(2)(e) — 2 cases
Kleiman v. Wright (2020)
Kleiman v. Wright (2020)
— 90.502(3) — 3 cases
XL SPECIALTY INS. v. Aircraft Holdings (2006)
“Therefore, those documents are protected from disclosure by the privilege as provided in section 90.502, Florida Statutes (2005). We agree with XL that the trial court should have conducted an in camera inspection of the documents at issue and excluded attorney-client privileged…”
Mordenti v. State (2008)
Cone v. Culverhouse (1997)
— 90.502(3)(d) — 1 case
Progressive Exp. Ins. Co. v. Scoma (2007)
“Courtney against the company, nothing in section 90.502 would suggest that Progressive loses the statutory privilege merely because Ms.”
— 90.502(3)(e) — 5 cases
Turner v. State (1988)
Tucker v. State (1986)
Rogers v. State (1999)
— 90.502(4) — 18 cases
Heather Worley v. Central Florida Young Men's Christian, etc. (2017)
“It is governed by the Florida Evidence Code, codified at section 90.502, Florida Statutes (2015). Under the Florida Evidence Code, A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, the contents of confidential communications when…”
XL SPECIALTY INS. v. Aircraft Holdings (2006)
“Therefore, those documents are protected from disclosure by the privilege as provided in section 90.502, Florida Statutes (2005). We agree with XL that the trial court should have conducted an in camera inspection of the documents at issue and excluded attorney-client privileged…”
State v. Famiglietti (2002)
Coffey-Garcia and Garcia v. South Miami Hospital, Inc. (2016)
“The right as it pertains to disclosure in judicial and administrative hearings, technically referred to as the “attorney-client privilege,” is governed by the Florida Evidence Code, codified at section 90.502, Florida Statutes (2013). The right as it pertains to disclosure…”
Lee v. Condell and Estache (2016)
“” § 90.502, Fla. Stat. Ann. (West 1999) (Law Revision Council Note — 1976).”
— 90.502(4)(a) — 23 cases
First Union Nat. Bank v. Turney (2001)
“§ 90.502, Fla. Stat. (1987). The "crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.”
BNP PARIBAS v. Wynne (2007)
Minakan v. Husted (2010)
— 90.502(4)(b) — 3 cases
Caputo v. Nouskhajian (2004)
Vasallo v. Bean (2016)
Huber, J. v. Noonan, S. (2018)
— 90.502(4)(c) — 19 cases
Arbelaez v. State (2000)
Nixon v. Singletary (2000)
— 90.502(4)(d) — 3 cases
Kranias v. Tsiogas (2006)
Thebaut v. Boyle (1995)
— 90.502(4)(e) — 8 cases
First Union Nat. Bank v. Turney (2001)
“§ 90.502, Fla. Stat. (1987). The "crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.”
Cone v. Culverhouse (1997)
Progressive Exp. Ins. Co. v. Scoma (2007)
“Courtney against the company, nothing in section 90.502 would suggest that Progressive loses the statutory privilege merely because Ms.”
— 90.502(5) — 2 cases
Progressive Exp. Ins. Co. v. Scoma (2007)
“Courtney against the company, nothing in section 90.502 would suggest that Progressive loses the statutory privilege merely because Ms.”
— 90.502(c)(2) — 1 case
— 90.502(l)(a) — 1 case
— 90.502(l)(b) — 3 cases
— 90.502(l)(c) — 10 cases
Lee v. Condell and Estache (2016)
“” § 90.502, Fla. Stat. Ann. (West 1999) (Law Revision Council Note — 1976).”
Minakan v. Husted (2010)
Witte v. Witte (2012)
— 90.502(l)(c)(2) — 1 case
— 90.502(l)(e) — 3 cases
— 90.502(l)(e)(2) — 1 case
Sanchez v. State (1994)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.