Howard K. Heims, Esq. & Littman, Sherlock & Helms, P.A. v. GMS Marine Service Corp., JBM Enterprise, and James Mills

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Howard K. Heims, Esq. & Littman, Sherlock & Helms, P.A. v. GMS Marine Service Corp., JBM Enterprise, and James Mills

143 So. 3d 1188, 2014 WL 3928404, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12433

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 13, 2014

Docket4D14-673

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 So. 3d 1188 (Howard K. Heims, Esq. & Littman, Sherlock & Helms, P.A. v. GMS Marine Service Corp., JBM Enterprise, and James Mills) 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

Howard K. Heims, Esq. & Littman, Sherlock & Helms, P.A. v. GMS Marine Service Corp., JBM Enterprise, and James Mills, 143 So. 3d 1188, 2014 WL 3928404, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12433 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Former counsel, Howard Heims and Lit-man, Sherlock & Heims, P.A., petition for certiorari review of a sua sponte order requiring them to allow successor counsel to inspect and copy documents in Heims’ client file. We grant the petition and quash the trial court’s order.

Petitioners have asserted a retaining lien over^ the file and refused to provide records until the client pays its bill. In ruling on a discovery matter between the parties, the court sua sponte ordered former counsel to make its file available for inspection and copying, but provided its retaining lien would be preserved. Former counsel did not receive the discovery motions or notice of the hearing before the court issued its order.

Contrary to respondents’ argument, a motion for rehearing would not have cured the due process violation. See Epps v. State, 941 So.2d 1206, 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

We agree with petitioners that requiring disclosure of their file would render the retaining hen meaningless. Moreover, this is not one of the rare cases that warrant disclosure of counsel’s file without payment of counsel’s fee or security. See Foreman v. Behr, 866 So.2d 705, 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

The order in this case departs from the essential requirements of law and causes material harm that cannot be remedied on appeal because the value of the retaining lien will be lost and because petitioners are not parties to the underlying action. Shelowitz, Shelowitz, Terrell & Coffey, P.A. v. Peters, 931 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Andrew Hall & Assocs. v. Ghanem, 679 So.2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Wintter v. Fabber, 618 So.2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see also Fox v. Widjaya, — So.3d —(Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the trial court’s order.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., STEVENSON and FORST, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Former counsel, Howard Heims and Lit-man, Sherlock & Heims, P.A., petition for certiorari review of a sua sponte order requiring them to allow successor counsel to inspect and copy documents in Heims’ client file. We grant the petition and quash the trial court’s order.

Petitioners have asserted a retaining lien over^ the file and refused to provide records until the client pays its bill. In ruling on a discovery matter between the parties, the court sua sponte ordered former counsel to make its file available for inspection and copying, but provided its retaining lien would be preserved. Former counsel did not receive the discovery motions or notice of the hearing before the court issued its order.

Contrary to respondents’ argument, a motion for rehearing would not have cured the due process violation. See Epps v. State, 941 So.2d 1206, 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

We agree with petitioners that requiring disclosure of their file would render the retaining hen meaningless. Moreover, this is not one of the rare cases that warrant disclosure of counsel’s file without payment of counsel’s fee or security. See Foreman v. Behr, 866 So.2d 705, 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

The order in this case departs from the essential requirements of law and causes material harm that cannot be remedied on appeal because the value of the retaining lien will be lost and because petitioners are not parties to the underlying action. Shelowitz, Shelowitz, Terrell & Coffey, P.A. v. Peters, 931 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Andrew Hall & Assocs. v. Ghanem, 679 So.2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Wintter v. Fabber, 618 So.2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see also Fox v. Widjaya, — So.3d —(Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the trial court’s order.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., STEVENSON and FORST, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 So. 3d 1188, 2014 WL 3928404, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-k-heims-esq-littman-sherlock-helms-pa-v-gms-marine-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack