PATRICIA A. RATHBURN, PETITIONER,
v.
RUSSELL POLICASTRO, AMAL CHATILLA, OLIN VOORHIES, SALLY VOORHIES AND BARBARA MARKS, 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 quashed trial court order compelling attorney to disclose third-party statements in deposition, holding that forced disclosure of such statements could impair the attorney's retaining lien by revealing work product.
An attorney's retaining lien is impaired by court orders compelling disclosure of third-party statements made to the attorney, as such statements may reveal work product including information gathered, thought processes, and conclusions.
[1] An attorney's retaining lien is impaired by court orders compelling disclosure of third-party statements that may reveal the attorney's work product, including informatio…
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 value of a retaining hen rests entirely upon the attorney's right to retain possession until the bill is paid; thus, courts may not impair that hen by compelling disclosure of the papers or items.”
Court's statement of the foundational principle governing retaining liens, citing Andrew Hall and Associates v. Ghanem.
Petitioner Rathburn, an attorney, was ordered by the trial court to disclose all statements made by others to her during a deposition, with a referee …
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'S Retaining Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant the petition for writ of certiorari. As this Court found in Andrew Hall and Associates v. Ghanem, 679 So. 2d 60, 61-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), the value of a retaining hen rests entirely upon the attorney’s right to retain possession until the bill is paid; thus, courts may not impair that hen by compelling disclosure of the papers or items. While petitioner is not being ordered to reveal her file or any items therein, the trial court has ordered her to disclose all statements made by others to petitioner. Such statements in the form of answers to petitioner’s questions potentially could reveal her work product in the form of information gathered, thought processes followed, and conclusions reached. The forced disclosure of those statements could improperly impinge upon petitioner’s retaining hen, just as forced disclosure of her file’s contents could do. The estabhshing of a referee to rule on the deposition questions does not remedy the situation. The referee has been ordered to rule according to the trial court’s ruling, which provides that petitioner must testify as to ah statements made by others to her. The referee should be permitted to rule that petitioner need not testify as to those statements which reveal her work product.
ORDER QUASHED.
POLEN, PARIENTE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.