SUSAN VALLIERE AND A. JAMES VALLIERE, PETITIONERS,
v.
FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION, 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.
Petitioners sought review of an administrative law judge's order denying attorney-client privilege for communications with two attorneys. The court affirmed the denial, finding that although petitioners subjectively believed they were seeking legal advice, the evidence showed their primary contact with the attorneys was for political advice at a social gathering, failing to establish a reasonable basis for claiming privilege.
The attorney-client privilege did not apply because, although petitioners subjectively believed they were seeking legal advice, the evidence showed they had substantial contacts with the attorneys for political advice, and the particular conversations occurred at a social gathering focused on political matters rather than legal matters, failing to establish a reasonable basis for the privilege.
[1] The existence of an attorney-client relationship hinges upon the client's belief that they are consulting a lawyer in that capacity and their manifested intention to seek…
[2] A client's subjective belief that they are consulting a lawyer for legal advice must be reasonable.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 test for determining the existence of [an attorney-client] relationship is a subjective one and 'hinges upon the client's belief that he is consulting a lawyer in that capacity and his manifested intention is to seek professional legal advice.'”
Establishes the foundational test for attorney-client privilege requiring both subjective belief and reasonable manifestation of intent to seek legal advice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners Susan and A. James Valliere had substantial contacts with two attorneys regarding political advice. The specific communications at issue o…
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 Legal Advice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners seek review of an order by an administrative law judge determining that the attorney-client privilege did not apply to communications between two attorneys and the petitioners. The administrative law judge held an evidentiary hearing and determined that the petitioners had not sought legal advice from the attorneys. We conclude that no departure from the essential requirements of law has been shown.1
The determination of an attorney-client relationship is a question of fact. “[T]he test for determining the existence of [an attorney-client] relationship is a subjective one and ‘hinges upon the client’s belief that he is consulting a lawyer in that capacity and his manifested intention is to seek professional legal advice.’ ” Green v. Montgomery County, 784 F.Supp. 841, 845-46 (M.D.Ala.1992) (citations omitted). However, “[t]his subjective belief must ... be a reasonable one.” Id. See also Bartholomew v. Bartholomew, 611 So. 2d 85, 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Although the petitioners testified that they believed that they were consulting the attorneys for legal advice, the evidence presented a conflicting picture. The petitioners had substantial contacts with the attorneys for political advice, not legal advice, and the particular conversations sought to be protected occurred at a social gathering when the main thrust of the conversation was political. The administrative law judge concluded that the petitioners were not consulting with the attorneys in their professional capacity, nor was their manifest intention to seek professional legal advice.
In order to grant the petition and quash the order, we must conclude that the administrative law judge departed from the essential requirements of law. Where the ruling is based upon competent substantial, albeit disputed, evidence, we cannot conclude that a departure from the essential requirements of law has occurred. We deny the petition.
SHAHOOD, C.J., WARNER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur. . This court’s standard of review is analogous to, and not broader than, the right of review by common law writ of certiorari. Menke v. Broward County Sch. Bd., 916 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Powell v. Solowsky, 14 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…unication is not privileged simply because one party to the communication happens to be a lawyer.” Id. (footnote omitted). The client’s belief that she is consulting a lawyer in that capacity must be reasonable. Valliere v. Florida Elections Comm’n, 989 So. 2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). What gives us pause is the proffer that Mr. Dulberg had requested a referral fee on one matter. Such a request would suggest the existence of an attorney-client relationship on that matter. We are not convinced that the a…
Authorities Cited
- Bartholomew v. Bartholomew, 611 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Menke v. Broward Cnty. Sch. Bd., 916 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)