GREGORY DONAHUE, PETITIONER,
v.
CHARLES P. VAUGHN, 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.
A former criminal defendant seeks a writ of mandamus to compel his former public defender to provide free copies of documents from the attorney's file. The Florida appellate court denies the petition, holding that attorney work product is the property of the attorney, mandamus does not apply to private attorneys, and free copies of public records are not required.
The court holds that: (1) attorney files and work product are the property of the attorney, not the client, and attorneys are not required to provide free copies; (2) mandamus does not apply to compel a private attorney to perform a duty; (3) even for public defender offices maintaining public records, the Florida Public Records Act requires payment of fees for copies; and (4) free copies and services are allowed only on plenary appeals, not for post-conviction relief.
[1] A private attorney is not obligated to provide a former client with copies of case preparation documents, such as pleadings, investigative reports, and subpoena copies, f…
[2] The contents of an attorney's file, relating to professional services performed for a client, are generally considered the personal property of the attorney, not the clie…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Pleadings, investigative reports, subpoena copies, reports and other case preparation documents are property of the lawyer. He is not required to give that material to the client or make copies free of charge.”
Establishes that attorney work product is the attorney's property, not the client's, and attorneys have no obligation to provide free copies.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Donahue was represented at trial by a public defender from the Ninth Judicial Circuit. After trial, he filed a petition for writ of mandamu…
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 Duty To Client cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is before the court on a petition for writ of mandamus.
Petitioner seeks to have this court order his former attorney to furnish to him, free of charge, copies of documents, held by the attorney, or as petitioner puts it “all records in the above cause.” We deny the writ for various reasons.
First, there is no duty upon a private attorney to give any of his files to a client, save documents which are solely those of the client and held by the lawyer. Pleadings, investigative reports, subpoena copies, reports and other case preparation documents are property of the lawyer. He is not required to give that material to the client or make copies free of charge.
Second, if appellant is indigent he can get documents from his court-appointed lawyer or public defender but he is not entitled to them free of charge:
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. § 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, like clerks of court. Not private lawyers. See Puckett v. Gentry, 577 So. 2d 965, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA) (mandamus is common law remedy used to enforce “established legal right by compelling a person in an official capacity to perform an indisputable ministerial duty required by law”), rev. denied, 591 So. 2d 183 (Fla.1991).
Fourth, if he could require the production of “records” without payment, it would only be for plenary appeals, not post-conviction matters. See Roesch v. State, 633 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1993) (indigent prisoner seeking disclosure of public records in conjunction with post-conviction motions not entitled to receive free copies); Ridge v. Adams, 643 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (free copies and services allowed only on plenary appeals, not for post-conviction relief); accord Smith v. State, 696 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Coates v. McWilliams, 650 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Campbell v. State, 593 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
PETITION DENIED.
COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
In re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, 916 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2005)…ed as remaining a client of the lawyer who primarily provided the prior legal services on behalf of the firm until the client advises Otherwise- Comment The current rule of law regarding ownership of client files is discussed in Donahue v. Vaughn, 721 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), and Dowda & Fields, P.A. v. Cobb, 452 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). A lawyer leaving a law firm, when the law firm remains available to continue legal representation, has no right nor expectation to take client files without…
-
Dumas v. Marrero, 864 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…es and documents retained by Mr. Marrero at the conclusion of Mr. Dumas’ criminal case. We originally denied relief in this case by order because mandamus does not lie to compel a private citizen to perform a ministerial duty. See Donahue v. Vaughn, 721 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). See also Puckett v. Gentry, 577 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied 591 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1991). Mr. Marrero, however, as we learned for the first time in the petition of Mr. Dumas for rehearing, was a specially appointed pu…
-
Villa Bellini Ristorante & Lounge, Inc. v. Ciro Mancini, 283 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…former assistant public defender who later became a private practitioner for the very reason that he "is a private citizen and not a government official." See Hall v. Liebling, 890 So. 2d 475, 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); see also Donahue v. Vaughn, 721 So. 2d 356, 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) ("[M]andamus does not lie to require a private citizen, appellee, to perform a ministerial duty required by law." (internal quotations omitted)). Nevertheless, there is a long running vein in Florida law that recognizes m…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Roesch v. State, 633 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- Kurtis J. Smith v. State, 696 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- 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)
- Puckett v. Gentry, 577 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Warren v. Warren, 643 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Campbell v. State, 593 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Dubose v. Shelnutt, 566 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Woodson v. Durocher, 588 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Jones v. State, 588 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)