JOSEPH R. DUBOSE, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
MARK SHELNUTT, ESQUIRE, AND DAVID EDDY, ESQUIRE, RESPONDENTS
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.
Court granted mandamus petition compelling former defense counsel to produce client depositions, holding that attorneys have a duty to furnish former clients with requested documents and must clarify ambiguous requests rather than simply refuse compliance.
Attorneys have a duty under Rule 4-1.16(d) to furnish former clients with requested documents and must clarify ambiguous requests by contacting the client rather than refusing to comply.
[1] An attorney's duty to furnish a former client with requested documents under Rule 4-1.16(d) includes an obligation to clarify ambiguous requests by contacting the client…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the attorneys should have contacted Dubose to ascertain which depositions were desired”
Court explaining the proper response to an ambiguous request from a former client
Dubose requested depositions from his former defense counsel, Shelnutt and Eddy, relating to completed circuit court and appellate proceedings. The at…
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 Professional Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joseph R. Dubose petitions this court for a Writ of Mandamus seeking to compel Special Assistant Public Defenders Mark D. Shelnutt and David B. Eddy to produce the depositions of Howard Leary, Joseph Stanton and Clifford Kyler Brown relating to the completed circuit court and appellate proceedings in his case. See Bermed v. Tacher, 565 So. 2d 833 (Fla.3d DCA 1990); Cf. Dennis v. Brummer, 479 So. 2d 857 (Fla.3d DCA 1985). The attorneys responded to this petition by explaining that they did not immediately comply with Dubose’s request because his letter failed to designate which witnesses’ depositions Dubose wanted. This was confirmed by Dubose’s letter,1 which was attached to the attorneys’ response.
However, the attorneys’ response was inadequate as they had a duty to furnish their former client with the requested documents.
Rule 4-1.16(d) Rules of Professional Conduct. Having received the somewhat ambiguous request, the attorneys should have contacted Du-bose to ascertain which depositions were desired.
Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is granted and the attorneys are directed to furnish Dubose with the depositions, or copies thereof, of witnesses Howard Leary, John Stanton and Clifford Kyler Brown. Because the attorneys have indicated they will comply with Petitioner’s request, we withhold issuance of the formal writ at this time.
GRANTED.
COBB, GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . Dubose’s letter stated: "Please send me all originals or copies of all the original depositions of the following witnesses from the above referenced case as soon as possible." The "following witnesses" were not identified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Colon v. Irwin, 732 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…698 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Pearce v. Sheffey, 647 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Eichelberger v. Brueckheimer, 613 So. 2d 1372, 1373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Thompson v. Unterberger, 577 So. 2d 684, 685-86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Dubose v. Shelnutt, 566 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Here, Colon seeks to have depositions prepared for trial that are not contained in the record of his criminal appeal. He is entitled to have them. If counsel wishes to retain a copy for his own records, he must make one at his…
-
Donahue v. Vaughn, 721 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ient. See Dowda and Fields, P.A. v. Cobb, 452 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Petitioner is not seeking transcripts which have been paid for at public expense, as in Thompson v. Unterberger, 577 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) and Dubose v. Shelnutt, 566 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Although the Public Defender’s Office is an agency which maintains public records which must be available for inspection under the flori-da Public Records Act, section 119.01, et seq., Fla. Stat. (1989), the act specifically pro…
-
Woodson v. Durocher, 588 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…ient. See Dowda and Fields, P.A. v. Cobb, 452 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Petitioner is not seeking transcripts which have been paid for at public expense, as in Thompson v. Unterberger, 577 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) and Dubose v. Shelnutt, 566 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Although the Public Defender’s Office is an agency which maintains public records which must be available for inspection under the Florida Public Records Act, section 119.01, et seq., Fla.Stat. (1989), the act specifically provi…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. de Jesus, 479 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Bermed v. Tacher, 565 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)