Glenns v. Miller

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Glenns v. Miller

692 So. 2d 303, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4821, 1997 WL 213015

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 30, 1997

DocketNo. 97-0361

StatusPublished

This text of 692 So. 2d 303 (Glenns v. Miller) 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

Glenns v. Miller, 692 So. 2d 303, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4821, 1997 WL 213015 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order of the trial court requiring his attorney to produce a memorandum of a conversation with petitioner, which the attorney placed in his office file. The contents of the note may now be relevant in this litigation. We grant the petition and find that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by ordering the memo disclosed without first conducting an in camera inspection of the document. In the instant case, the respondents’ arguments that the memo is not covered by the attorney-client privilege because the conversation was related to nonlegal matters and because the information revealed could not have been kept confidential for other reasons cannot properly be assessed without inspection of the contents of the memo. See Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 431 So.2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Skorman v. Hovnanian of Florida, Inc., 382 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Accordingly, we grant the petition and order the trial court to conduct an in camera inspection of the memo in question.

STONE, POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order of the trial court requiring his attorney to produce a memorandum of a conversation with petitioner, which the attorney placed in his office file. The contents of the note may now be relevant in this litigation. We grant the petition and find that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by ordering the memo disclosed without first conducting an in camera inspection of the document. In the instant case, the respondents’ arguments that the memo is not covered by the attorney-client privilege because the conversation was related to nonlegal matters and because the information revealed could not have been kept confidential for other reasons cannot properly be assessed without inspection of the contents of the memo. See Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 431 So.2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Skorman v. Hovnanian of Florida, Inc., 382 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Accordingly, we grant the petition and order the trial court to conduct an in camera inspection of the memo in question.

STONE, POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

692 So. 2d 303, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4821, 1997 WL 213015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glenns-v-miller-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack