TOMKINS INDUSTRIES, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
WARREN TECHNOLOGY, INC., F/K/A WARREN MANUFACTURING CO., INC., 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 draft letter from a corporate employee to corporate counsel, containing handwritten notations, is protected by attorney-client privilege if forwarded for legal advice and not business advice.
Tomkins Industries forwarded a draft letter to its corporate counsel for suggestions and advice, which contained handwritten notations. Warren Technol…
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-Client Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
Tomkins Industries, Inc., seeks a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court order granting plaintiff, Warren Technology, Inc.’s challenge to a special master’s report. We grant certiorari and quash the order. At issue in this case is whether a draft of a proposed letter from Tomkins to Warren that Tomkins forwarded to its corporate counsel for suggestions and advice is protected by attorney-client privilege. The draft contained handwritten notations by Tomkins to counsel and from counsel to Tomkins. We hold that the communication in this case satisfies the test enunciat ed in Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla.1994), for determining whether a communication between corporate employees and corporate counsel is protected by the attorney-client privilege.
The record demonstrates that this draft was forwarded to counsel for legal advice in view of the contentious relationship with Warren and Tomkins’s anticipation of litigation with Warren. As such, the corporate counsel was rendering legal advice not business advice.
Moreover, we are unpersuaded by Warren’s assertions that the crime or fraud exception nullifies any possible privilege Tomkins is claiming. Warren has failed to produce evidence sufficient to support its theory of fraud. See American Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
We have not arrived at a stage in our criminal jurisprudence where being obnoxious or obstreperous rises to the level of criminal or fraudulent behavior. Because the order in this case creates a situation “where there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice,” Doe v. Archdiocese of Catholic Church of Miami, 721 So. 2d 428, 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), we grant the writ, quash the order and remand with instructions that the special master’s report be adopted.
Certiorari granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Marlins Baseball Club, LLC v. Certain Underwriters AT Lloyd's London Subscribing TO Policy NO. 893/HC/97/9096, 900 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…), as he is a licensed attorney in the state of Missouri. Furthermore, the attorney-client privilege protects communications on legal matters between corporate in-house counsel and corporate employees. See Tomkins Indus., Inc. v. Warren Tech., Inc., 768 So. 2d 1125, 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that a communication between corporate counsel and corporate employees is protected if the communication concerns legal advice in view of a contentious relationship and in anticipation of litigation). Our review o…
Authorities Cited
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1994)
- Howard v. State, 697 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- DOE v. Archdiocese OF THE Catholic Church OF Miami, 721 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)