Del Prado v. Robert K. Estes, P.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Del Prado v. Robert K. Estes, P.A.

532 So. 2d 1101, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2271, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4422, 1988 WL 100933

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 4, 1988

DocketNo. 88-407

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 532 So. 2d 1101 (Del Prado v. Robert K. Estes, P.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Del Prado v. Robert K. Estes, P.A., 532 So. 2d 1101, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2271, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4422, 1988 WL 100933 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this legal malpractice action arising out of the defendants’ (Estes and his professional association) alleged failure to pursue timely a worker’s compensation action on the plaintiffs behalf, the plaintiff requested the defendants to produce

“[t]he entire case file, along with any and all pleadings, materials acquired from or on behalf of the plaintiff, any legal or factual research, notes, memoranda, or correspondence, etc. created or acquired by the defendants regarding plaintiffs Workers’ Compensation Claim No. 048 52 0232, arising out of injuries sustained on or about June 18, 1976.”

The defendants responded by asserting that “the request is so broad, vague and ambiguous as to require production of work product and waiver of the attorney/client privilege between Defendants herein and their counsel.” However, as the defendants concede, there was absolutely no basis to claim any privilege against the former client in respect to papers created or acquired by the defendants regarding the former client’s worker’s compensation claim. Thus, there was no basis for the trial court to enter a summary judgment for the defendants while the plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of such papers from the recalcitrant defendants was still pending. Accordingly, the summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this legal malpractice action arising out of the defendants’ (Estes and his professional association) alleged failure to pursue timely a worker’s compensation action on the plaintiffs behalf, the plaintiff requested the defendants to produce

“[t]he entire case file, along with any and all pleadings, materials acquired from or on behalf of the plaintiff, any legal or factual research, notes, memoranda, or correspondence, etc. created or acquired by the defendants regarding plaintiffs Workers’ Compensation Claim No. 048 52 0232, arising out of injuries sustained on or about June 18, 1976.”

The defendants responded by asserting that “the request is so broad, vague and ambiguous as to require production of work product and waiver of the attorney/client privilege between Defendants herein and their counsel.” However, as the defendants concede, there was absolutely no basis to claim any privilege against the former client in respect to papers created or acquired by the defendants regarding the former client’s worker’s compensation claim. Thus, there was no basis for the trial court to enter a summary judgment for the defendants while the plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of such papers from the recalcitrant defendants was still pending. Accordingly, the summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

532 So. 2d 1101, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2271, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4422, 1988 WL 100933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/del-prado-v-robert-k-estes-pa-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack