SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L., PETITIONER,
v.
JACQUELINE M. SIMMONS, 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.
The court held that trust account wire receipts are not protected by the attorney-client privilege because the information is not privileged in the hands of the client. Therefore, the firm failed to demonstrate irreparable harm necessary for certiorari jurisdiction.
[1] Financial information regarding a client's assets held by an attorney is not protected by the attorney-client privilege.
[2] Documents that are not privileged in the hands of a client cannot be shielded from discovery by transferring them to an attorney.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA judgment creditor sought discovery of trust account wire receipts held by a law firm, which represented a client against whom the creditor had obtai…
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
Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. (“the Firm”) petitions for a writ of certio-rari, seeking to quash a discovery order that permits Jacqueline M. Simmons (“the Judgment Creditor”) to view trust account wire receipts. After obtaining two judgments against one of the Firm’s clients, the Judgment Creditor discovered that the client transferred money to the Firm. The Judgment Creditor subpoenaed the Firm requesting documents reflecting any payment of sums into and out of the Firm’s trust account for the benefit of its client. Following a hearing and in camera review of the subject wire receipts, the trial court granted the discovery request but redacted some banking information from the documents, such as the trust account number.
The issue presented is whether the trust account wire receipts are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Because this financial information is not privileged in the hands of the client, it is not privileged in the hands of the attorney. Greenberg Traurig v. Bolton, 706 So.2d 97, 98-99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding the attorney-client privilege does not extend to information reflecting a judgment debtor’s assets which is held by a law firm); Goldberg v. Ross, 421 So.2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (holding that a judgment debtor’s trust fund records are not protected by the attorney-client privilege because “[djocu-ments which are not privileged in the hands of the client cannot be shielded by transferring them to the attorney”).
Because the records are not privileged, the Firm has failed to demonstrate that production of the documents would constitute irreparable harm. We therefore dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So.3d 450, 454-55 (Fla.2012) (“A finding that the petitioning party has suffered an irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on direct appeal is a condition precedent to invoking a district court’s certiorari juris*44diction.”) (citation and internal quotations omitted).
Petition dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sasha Invs. LLC v. Staghorn Dev., LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)…r transactions designed to reveal the debtors' collectable ---PAGE 8--- assets. Asset-related information in the possession of a law firm is not automatically shielded by attorney-client privilege. See Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. v. Simmons, 151 So. 3d 42, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (trust account wire receipts reflecting payments into and out of the law firm's trust account for the benefit of a client were not protected by attorney-client privilege); Finol v. Finol, 869 So. 2d 666, 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004…
Authorities Cited
- Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 2012)
- Goldberg v. Eli Ross, 421 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Greenberg Traurig Hoffman Lipoff Rosen & Quentel, P.A. v. Bolton, 706 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)