ENRIQUE A. FINOL, PETITIONER,
v.
CARMEN FINOL, 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.
Attorney fee retainer agreements and billing records are discoverable unless they reveal counsel's mental impressions, and are relevant to issues like alimony and child support.
Petitioner husband sought certiorari review of a trial court order compelling discovery of his attorney's fee retainer agreements and billing records.…
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 Prevailing Party Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Petitioner husband seeks certiorari review of a trial court order allowing discovery of his attorney’s fee retainer agreements and billing and payment records. He contends they are protected by the attorney/client privilege and apparently assumes, without citing any authority, that billing information in and of itself is not discoverable.
If this billing information contained descriptions of services rendered which would reveal the mental impressions and opinions of counsel, that information should be redacted as privileged, Old Holdings, Ltd. v. Taplin, Howard, Shaw & Miller, P.A., 584 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); however, the remaining information is not privileged and therefore discoverable.
This court has recently allowed discovery of defense counsel’s billing records because they were relevant to plaintiffs claim for prevailing party attorney’s fees. Brown Distrib. Co. of West Palm Beach v. Marcel, 866 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In this case it is relevant to the issue of alimony, child support, equitable distribution, and attorney’s fees. The petition for certiorari is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Anderson Columbia & Commercial Risk Mgmt., Inc. v. Brown, 902 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…l be disclosed here, does not provide any insight into the thought processes of the opposing party’s attorney. We hold, therefore, that the challenged order does not infringe upon material protected by the work product privilege. See Finol v. Finol, 869 So. 2d 666, 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (upholding order which allowed discovery of attorney billing information but advising that “descriptions of services rendered which would reveal the mental [*841] impressions and opinions of counsel” should be redacted). We…
-
Paton v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 190 So. 3d 1047 (Fla. 2016)…materials did not.contain privileged information and th.e disclosure of such materials would not result in irreparable harm. See Brown Distrib. Co. of W. Palm Beach v. Marcel, 866 So. 2d 160, 161 (Fla. 4th [*1052] DCA 2004); see also Finol v. Finol, 869 So. 2d 666, 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). We agree with the rationale of the First District in Anderson Columbia and conclude that the billing records of opposing counsel are relevant to the issue of reasonableness of time expended in a claim for attorney’s fees,…
-
Zephyr Haven Health & Rehab Ctr., Inc. v. Hardin, 122 So. 3d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…rangement as both a sword and a shield must fail. Even assuming that the fee agreement contains privileged material, that information could be redacted and the billing information could be produced to substantiate Hardin’s claim. See Finol v. Finol, 869 So. 2d 666, 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Consequently, Hardin failed to carry her burden under Green Tree. V. Conclusion Because the trial court’s findings are unsupported by the record, it erred in denying the motion to arbitrate. Accordingly, the trial court’s…
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
- OLD Holdings, Ltd. v. Taplin, Howard, Shaw & Miller, P.A., 584 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Brown Distrib. Co. OF W. Palm Beach v. Gale Marcel, 866 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)