Cabatit-Alegre v. Canders
This text of Cabatit-Alegre v. Canders (Cabatit-Alegre v. Canders) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT YORK,SS. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-11-257 . I JOSEPH N. CABA TIT -ALEGRE, ) l)ON -Yo,<- ,:, ~/1.3 in his capacity as Personal ) I Representative of the Estate of ) Thomas E. Cabatit-Alegre and ) JOSEPH N. CABA TIT -ALEGRE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) V. ) ORDER ) STEPHEN A. CANDERS, ) and ) MAINE LEGAL ASSOCIATES, P.A. ) ) Defendants. )
I. Background
Plaintiff has brought a suit for negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary
duty against Defendant for his representation of Ms. Julibel Cabatit-Alegre as personal
representative of the estate of Mr. Thomas E. Cabatit. Plaintiff alleges Attorney Canders
owed a duty to the Estate of Thomas Cabatit and to Plaintiff as a beneficiary. Plaintiff
asserts that Defendant breached those duties. Plaintiff is requesting discovery in the form
of documents pertaining to Defendant's representation in the underlying probate
proceeding. Plaintiff has served Defendant with a Notice of Deposition. Defendant has
moved the Court to Quash Plaintiff's Notice of Deposition on the basis of attorney-client
privilege, work product privilege, or other applicable privileges.
II. Discussion
A. Privilege
1 Defendant Moves to Quash Notice of Deposition on the basis of attorney-client
privilege, work product privilege, or other applicable privileges. The parties dispute
whether Defendant's representation of Ms. Cabatit-Alegre extended to the Estate itself or
the beneficiaries of the estate and therefore whether Defendant can claim privilege as a
defense to requests for documents by Plaintiff. Attorney-client privilege may be asserted
by an attorney on behalf of his client. M.R. Evid. 502(c). However, the attorney does not
retain this privilege separate from the client. Id. Attorney-client privilege attaches at the
formation of the attorney-client relationship. The Law Court defined this moment as
arising when
(1) a person seeks advice or assistance from an attorney, (2) the advice or
assistance sought pertains to matters within the attorney's professional
competence, and (3) the attorney expressly or impliedly agrees to give or
actually gives the desired advice or assistance.
Estate of Keatinge v. Biddle, 2002 ME 21, ~14, 789 A.2d 1271.
In the current case, the Engagement and Fee Agreement signed by Defendant and
Ms. Cabatit-Alegre names Ms. Cabatit-Alegre as the client and defines the scope of the
work as the probate of Mr. Thomas Cabatit's estate. The agreement specifies that the
work will be performed for Ms. Cabatit-Alegre and that she will pay an hourly rate.
Defendant was the attorney of Ms. Cabatit-Alegre in her role as personal representative
of the estate of Thomas Cabatit only. Neither the agreement, nor any actions alleged,
suggest Defendant held himself out as attorney for the Estate of Thomas Cabatit or the
beneficiaries thereof. There was no formation of an attorney-client relationship between
2 Defendant and either the estate of Thomas Cabatit or the estate's beneficiaries. Therefore,
the attorney-client privilege of Ms. Cabatit-Alegre remains intact.
B. Motion to Quash
Plaintiff has a right to discovery in the case and ordinarily the right to depose
Defendant under M.R. Civ. P. 30. However it would appear that the deposition would be
focused upon the communications deemed privileged. As discussed above, Defendant is
not required to produce documents or information where Defendant does have reason to
assert privilege .. Defendant's Motion to Quash is granted on the issue of privilege is
granted.
III. Conclusion
Defendant's Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition is granted in part. However, if
the Plaintiff intends to proceed on areas which are not privileged as defined above the
Motion is denied in part.
DATED: John O'Neil, Jr. Justice, Superior Court
3 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF: LEEBALS ALLISON MARIE MCLAUGHLIN MARCUS CLEGG & MISTRETTA PA ONE CANAL PLAZA SUITE 600 PORTLAND ME 04101
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS: JAMES BOWIE HILLARY BOUCHARD THOMPSON & BOWIE PO BOX4630 PORTLAND ME 04112
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Cabatit-Alegre v. Canders, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cabatit-alegre-v-canders-mesuperct-2013.