EDDIE WOODSON, PETITIONER,
v.
JOSEPH W. DUROCHER, ETC., LOUIS LORINCZ, ETC., 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.
Petitioner's writ of mandamus to compel the public defender to provide free copies of documents from the attorney's file is denied because attorney work product is the attorney's personal property, not the client's, and the Public Records Act requires payment for copies.
An attorney's file relating to professional services is the personal property of the attorney, not the client, and mandamus does not lie to compel free provision of copies absent a mandatory ministerial duty.
[1] An attorney's file containing work product and professional services rendered is the personal property of the attorney rather than the client, and the client has no right…
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 intelligencePetitioner was represented at trial by a public defender of the Ninth Judicial Circuit and sought a writ of mandamus to compel the public defender to …
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 Attorney Work Product cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Petitioner was represented at trial by a public defender of the Ninth Judicial Circuit and now seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the public defender to provide free copies of documents in the public defender’s file. The contents of an attorney’s file relating to professional services performed for a client are the personal property of the attorney, not the client. 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 provides that a custodian of public records shall furnish copies of those records “upon payment of the fee prescribed by law” and there is no provision for free copies. Section 119.07(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989). In the absence of a mandatory, ministerial duty on the part of the public defender to provide a former client with free copies of the attorney’s file, mandamus is not appropriate.
WRIT DENIED.
PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kurtis J. Smith v. State, 696 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…dequate remedy at law. See Turner v. Singletary, 623 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). An assistant public defender is an “official” for purposes of mandamus. Eichelberger v. Brueckheimer, 613 So. 2d 1372, 1373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Woodson v. Durocher, 588 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), rev. denied, 598 So. 2d 79 (Fla.1992). The legal duty of the official must be “ministerial in nature and not discretionary.” Lee County v. State Farm [*816] Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 634 So. 2d 260, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). For purpos…
-
Potts v. State, 869 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…lab report that was the attorney’s work product). We also find no merit in Potts’ argument that the Public Records Act, chapter 119, Florida Statutes (2002), entitles him to free copies of all records generated in his case. In Woodson v. Durocher, 588 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), the Fifth District recognized that mandamus is not the appropriate remedy when the public defender does not have a mandatory duty to provide free copies of the attorney’s file to the client under the Public Records Act. Even tho…
-
Donahue v. Vaughn, 721 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…free copies. § 119.07(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989). In the absence of a mandatory, ministerial duty on the part of the public defender to provide a former client with free copies of the attorney’s file, mandamus is not appropriate. Woodson v. Durocher, 588 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), rev. den., 598 So. 2d 79 (Fla.1992). Third, mandamus does not lie to require a private citizen, appellee, to perform a “ministerial duty required by law.” Mandamus in these circumstances only applies to government officials, li…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dowda & Fields, P.A. v. Cobb, 452 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Thompson v. Simpson Unterberger, 577 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Dubose v. Shelnutt, 566 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)