Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 90.502 (2025)
Lawyer-client privilege.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
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. Cent. Florida Young Men's Christian, etc., 228 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017).
Heather Worley v. Cent. Florida Young Men's Christian, etc., 228 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 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 Ins., 295 F.R.D. 550 (S.D. Fla. 2013). “Fla. Stat. § 90.502 (1), (2). 136 The attorney-client privilege is far from absolute.”
Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 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, 929 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 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 Ins. Co., 74 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 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 & Estache, 208 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “” § 90.502, Fla. Stat. Ann. (West 1999) (Law Revision Council Note — 1976).”
McWatters v. State, 36 So. 3d 613 (Fla. 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, 824 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). “§ 90.502, Fla. Stat. (1987). The "crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.”
Progressive Exp. Ins. Co. v. Scoma, 975 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 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, 221 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 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 & Garcia v. South Miami Hosp., Inc., 194 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 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, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 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, 712 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
City of North Miami v. Miami Herald Pub. Co., 468 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1985).
S & I Investments v. Payless Flea Mkt., Inc., 10 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
Hillsborough Cty. Aviation Auth. v. Azzarelli Const. Co., 436 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
The Haskell Co. v. Georgia Pac. Corp., 684 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
— 90.502(1)(b) — 15 cases
State v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 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,…”
S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1994).
State v. Branham, 952 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. City of North Miami, 452 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Tail of the Pup, Inc. v. Webb, 528 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
— 90.502(1)(c) — 27 cases
Heather Worley v. Cent. Florida Young Men's Christian, etc., 228 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 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, 409 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1982).
Black v. State, 920 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., 846 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
Abamar Hous. v. Lisa Daly Lady Decor, 698 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
— 90.502(1)(e) — 1 case
Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Devine, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (M.D. Fla. 2017).
— 90.502(2) — 55 cases
Heather Worley v. Cent. Florida Young Men's Christian, etc., 228 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 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 Ins. Co., 74 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 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 & Garcia v. South Miami Hosp., Inc., 194 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 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, 975 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). “Courtney against the company, nothing in section 90.502 would suggest that Progressive loses the statutory privilege merely because Ms.”
Boyles v. Mid-Florida Television Corp., 431 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
— 90.502(2)(e) — 2 cases
Kleiman v. Wright (S.D. Fla. 2020).
Kleiman v. Wright (S.D. Fla. 2020).
— 90.502(3) — 3 cases
XL SPECIALTY INS. v. Aircraft Holdings, 929 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 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, 982 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
Cone v. Culverhouse, 687 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
— 90.502(3)(d) — 1 case
Progressive Exp. Ins. Co. v. Scoma, 975 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 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, 530 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1988).
Tucker v. State, 484 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
Rogers v. State, 742 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Kesler v. Progressive Select Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2026).
— 90.502(4) — 18 cases
Heather Worley v. Cent. Florida Young Men's Christian, etc., 228 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 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, 929 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 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, 817 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
Coffey-Garcia & Garcia v. South Miami Hosp., Inc., 194 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 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 & Estache, 208 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “” § 90.502, Fla. Stat. Ann. (West 1999) (Law Revision Council Note — 1976).”
— 90.502(4)(a) — 23 cases
Am. Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
First Union Nat. Bank v. Turney, 824 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). “§ 90.502, Fla. Stat. (1987). The "crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.”
Chomat v. N. Ins. Co. of New York, 919 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
Bnp Paribas v. Wynne, 967 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
Minakan v. Husted, 27 So. 3d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
— 90.502(4)(b) — 3 cases
Caputo v. Nouskhajian, 871 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Vasallo v. Bean, 208 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
Huber, J. v. Noonan, S. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
— 90.502(4)(c) — 19 cases
Alexander v. Tandem Staffing Solutions, 881 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
Arbelaez v. State, 775 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2000).
Coyne v. Schwartz, Gold, Cohen, Zakarin, 715 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Nixon v. Singletary, 758 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2000).
Volpe v. Conroy, Simberg & Ganon, PA, 720 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
— 90.502(4)(d) — 3 cases
Young, Stern & Tannenbaum v. Smith, 416 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Kranias v. Tsiogas, 941 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
Thebaut v. Boyle, 650 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
— 90.502(4)(e) — 8 cases
First Union Nat. Bank v. Turney, 824 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). “§ 90.502, Fla. Stat. (1987). The "crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.”
Indiantown Realty Partners, Ltd. P'ship v. Brown-Harward (In Re Indiantown Realty Partners, Ltd. P'ship), 270 B.R. 532 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2001).
Cone v. Culverhouse, 687 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Omega Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Templeton, 805 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
Progressive Exp. Ins. Co. v. Scoma, 975 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 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, 975 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). “Courtney against the company, nothing in section 90.502 would suggest that Progressive loses the statutory privilege merely because Ms.”
Florida Dep't of Revenue v. Collingwood, 43 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
— 90.502(c)(2) — 1 case
In re Int'l Oil Trading Co., 548 B.R. 825 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2016).
— 90.502(l)(a) — 1 case
Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Devine, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (M.D. Fla. 2017).
— 90.502(l)(b) — 3 cases
Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Devine, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (M.D. Fla. 2017).
Blackhawk Tennessee, Ltd. P'ship v. Waltemyer, 900 F. Supp. 414 (M.D. Fla. 1995).
Moecker v. Greenspoon, Marder, Hirschfeld, Rafkin, Ross, Berger & Abrams Anton P.A., 377 B.R. 396 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2007).
— 90.502(l)(c) — 10 cases
Lee v. Condell & Estache, 208 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “” § 90.502, Fla. Stat. Ann. (West 1999) (Law Revision Council Note — 1976).”
Minakan v. Husted, 27 So. 3d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
Witte v. Witte, 126 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
Smith v. Armour Pharm. Co., 838 F. Supp. 1573 (S.D. Fla. 1993).
RC/PB, Inc. v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., 132 So. 3d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
— 90.502(l)(c)(2) — 1 case
AG Beaumont 1, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 160 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).
— 90.502(l)(e) — 3 cases
Nova Se. Univ., Inc. v. Jacobson, 25 So. 3d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
Montanez v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 135 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).
AG Beaumont 1, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 160 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).
— 90.502(l)(e)(2) — 1 case
Sanchez v. State, 641 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 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.