MARVIN MARK MARKS, GARY MARKS, AND MARK MARKS, P.A., PETITIONERS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted certiorari and remanded for an in camera hearing on attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine claims, rejecting petitioners' privacy expectation argument but requiring the trial court to address privilege and discovery scope issues.
Petitioners lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in client files that had been ordered transferred by the Florida Supreme Court and were already in the possession of a third-party attorney, but the trial court must conduct an in camera hearing on attorney-client and work product privileges and consider whether the subpoena exceeds permissible discovery bounds.
[1] A party lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in documents that have been ordered transferred by court directive and are already in the possession of a third party.
[2] On remand from certiorari review, a trial court must conduct an in camera hearing to determine whether attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine protect subpoen…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo lawyers and their law firm were charged with racketeering, grand theft, insurance fraud, and perjury in connection with their law practice. The st…
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 Insurance Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari brought by two lawyers and their law firm. It is addressed to a trial court order that denied their motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum, whereby the state obtained approximately 253 of their client files. Petitioners are charged with racketeering, grand theft, insurance fraud, and perjury in connection with their practice of law.
We have examined and assayed the several points raised by petitioners and the responses.
In our opinion the petitioners, under the facts of this case, did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the subpoenaed files, as they claimed, inasmuch as the files in dispute had been ordered by the Florida Supreme Court to be turned over to other attorneys or returned to the clients involved. In fact, the files had been earlier transferred to a third party, an attorney, John Fowler. Thus, in this connection, the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in entering the questioned order. However, there are other matters not treated that prompt us to grant certiorari and remand. We grant the writ and remand with instructions to conduct an in camera hearing on the issue of attorney-client and work product privileges as asserted by petitioners. Moreover, on remand the trial court is respectfully instructed to consider and adjudicate petition; ers’ issue that the subpoena duces tecum exceeds the permissible bounds of discovery under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220.
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is
GRANTED, and the cause is remanded with instructions.
ANSTEAD, WALDEN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Mark Marks, P.A., 758 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ion of 253 client files originating in the offices of the charged lawyers. These lawyers moved to quash the subpoena, but the trial judge then assigned to the case denied the motion. On review of the refusal to quash the subpoena in Marks v. State, 572 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), we said: “We grant the writ and remand with instructions to conduct an in camera hearing on the issue of attorney-client and work product privileges as asserted by petitioners. Moreover, on remand the trial court is respectfull…