Office of the Public Defender v. Lakicevic

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Office of the Public Defender v. Lakicevic

215 So. 3d 112, 2017 WL 697688, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2349

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 22, 2017

Docket3D15-2084

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 215 So. 3d 112 (Office of the Public Defender v. Lakicevic) 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

Office of the Public Defender v. Lakicevic, 215 So. 3d 112, 2017 WL 697688, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2349 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying its motion for protective oi'der from a third-party subpoena duces tecum for deposition. In its filings below, Appellant asserted that the information sought by Appellee (pertaining to Appellant’s former client) was communicated during the attorney-client relationship and with the expectation that the information would remain confidential. There is no record evidence disputing that the client communicated this information to Appellant in confidence, during and as a result of the attorney-client relationship, and with the expectation that this communication was and would remain confidential and not be disclosed to anyone.

Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in denying the motion for protective order, as the confidential communication by the client to his attorney was privileged *113 and not subject to disclosure. See § 90.502(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2015) 1 R.L.R. v. State, 116 So.3d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Reversed and remanded.

1

. Section 90.502(l)(c) provides:

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.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying its motion for protective oi'der from a third-party subpoena duces tecum for deposition. In its filings below, Appellant asserted that the information sought by Appellee (pertaining to Appellant’s former client) was communicated during the attorney-client relationship and with the expectation that the information would remain confidential. There is no record evidence disputing that the client communicated this information to Appellant in confidence, during and as a result of the attorney-client relationship, and with the expectation that this communication was and would remain confidential and not be disclosed to anyone.

Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in denying the motion for protective order, as the confidential communication by the client to his attorney was privileged *113 and not subject to disclosure. See § 90.502(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2015) 1 R.L.R. v. State, 116 So.3d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Reversed and remanded.

1

. Section 90.502(l)(c) provides:

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 So. 3d 112, 2017 WL 697688, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-the-public-defender-v-lakicevic-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack