CARLOS H. MERCADO, APPELLANT,
v.
P. JACQUES PARENT, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An attorney appealed a post-judgment order requiring him to disclose his client's address to aid in execution of a judgment. The court held that while client addresses may be discoverable during pending litigation, the attorney-client privilege protects the address after final judgment is entered and absent appeal, absent compelling reasons for disclosure.
The court held that a client's address given confidentially to an attorney is a privileged communication and the attorney need not disclose it following entry of final judgment absent appeal, provided there is no compelling ground to require disclosure for proper administration of justice.
[1] An attorney's disclosure of a client's address, provided confidentially during the attorney-client relationship, is generally considered a privileged communication.
[2] The attorney-client privilege may be claimed by the attorney on behalf of the client to refuse to disclose confidential communications.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“As a general rule an address given confidentially by a client to an attorney while consulting him in a professional capacity is a privileged communication, and he will not be compelled to disclose it where no sufficient ground is shown for the necessity therefor.”
Establishes the foundational rule that client addresses are privileged communications under the attorney-client privilege.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing entry of final judgment in a civil action, the trial court ordered the defendant's attorney to disclose the client's address to aid in execu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Confidential Communications cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from a post-judgment order requiring a lawyer who represented a defendant in a civil action to divulge the client’s address in aid of execution following the entry of final judgment. We reverse.
The lawyer-client privilege is codified in section 90.502, Florida Statutes (1979) and enables the lawyer to claim the privilege on behalf of the client to refuse to disclose the contents of a confidential communication. Exclusions therefrom are set forth in the same section. The address of a client is not specifically mentioned therein.
97 C.J.S. Witnesses § 286, at p. 812 (1957) states the general rule to be: As a general rule an address given confidentially by a client to an attorney while consulting him in a professional capacity is a privileged communication, and he will not be compelled to disclose it where no sufficient ground is shown for the necessity therefor. (Footnotes omitted.) We believe it to be a sound rule.1 See also Annot., 16 A.L.R.3d 1047 (1967). Cf. McCormick’s Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 90 (E. Cleary 2d ed. 1972); Willis v. Superior Court, 112 Cal.App.3d 277, 169 Cal.Rptr. 301 (1980).
We realize that there is authority for not applying the general rule during the pendency of litigation. The court is entitled to know the identity and addresses of the parties. See Burden v. Church of Scientology of California, 526 F.Supp. 44 (M.D.Fla.1981), which relied upon Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.060(d) in requiring former counsel for defendants to disclose the defendants’ whereabouts as the plaintiff had been unable to serve them with a copy of the complaint.2
However, we also recognize that in the absence of disclosure for the proper administration of justice, such as requiring the information to prevent the flaunting of the court’s orders, the entry of judgment absent appeal should serve as a proper line of demarcation subsequent to which the attorney should be able to claim the privilege. At that point the action is over.- We are not the only court to recognize such a distinction. See Matter of Jacqueline F., 47 N.Y.2d 215, 417 N.Y.S.2d 884, 391 N.E. 2d 967 (1979); Potamkin Cadillac Corp. v. Karmgard, 100 Misc.2d 627, 420 N.Y.S.2d 104 (N.Y.Civ.Ct.1979).
In the present ease we perceive no compelling ground to require disclosure for the proper administration of justice. Accordingly, we reverse the post-judgment order. HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur. . It is not without significance that this privilege is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications, its history extending from the reign of Elizabeth I. 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2290 (McNaughton rev., 1961).
. Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.060(d) provides that an attorney may be required by the court to give the address of the party he represents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nicolette Wiggam v. Bamford, 562 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…obvious lead to the appellant’s whereabouts. They failed to make inquiry of her attorney. As in Torelli, the conclusion that they failed to exercise due diligence is therefore compelled. We note that our holding is consistent with Mercado v. Parent, 421 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In Mercado, this court held that an attorney could not be required to divulge his clients’ whereabouts after entry of judgment absent appeal. However, this [*392] court also noted that the rule did not apply during the pendency…
-
Greenberg Traurig Hoffman Lipoff Rosen & Quentel, P.A. v. Bolton, 706 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…e for the fact of consultation or employment, including facts of the identity of the client, such identifying facts about him as his ad-dress_” John William Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 90 (4th Ed.1992) (footnotes omitted); Cf. Mercado v. Parent, 421 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Next, because the information and/or financial documents that Mr. Bolton is seeking regarding Ms. Buscemi’s assets is not privileged in Ms. Buscemi’s hands, they “cannot be shielded by transferring them to the attorney.” [*99] G…
-
Suarez v. Hillcrest Dev. OF S. Fla., Inc., 742 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…by a judgment creditor that could lead to the whereabouts of the judgment debtor. In a situation such as this, the attorney-client privilege does not apply to facts of the identity of the client, such as the client’s address. Cf. Mercado v. Parent, 421 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The petition for writ of certiorari with respect to petitioners’ ore tenus motion to compel the disclosure of Hillcrest’s last known address and telephone number is granted, that portion of the lower court’s order which denies…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burden v. Church of Scientology of Cal., 526 F. Supp. 44 (M.D. Fla. 1981)