OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MILENA LAKICEVIC, ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 2017-02-22
No. 3D15-2084
Before EMAS, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.
215 So. 3d 112 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2017) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that a client's confidential communication to their attorney is privileged and not subject to disclosure via a third-party subpoena.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant sought a protective order to prevent disclosure of information obtained from a former client, asserting attorney-client privilege. The trial…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying its motion for protective oi'der from a third-party subpoena duces tecum for deposition. In its filings below, Appellant asserted that the information sought by Appellee (pertaining to Appellant’s former client) was communicated during the attorney-client relationship and with the expectation that the information would remain confidential. There is no record evidence disputing that the client communicated this information to Appellant in confidence, during and as a result of the attorney-client relationship, and with the expectation that this communication was and would remain confidential and not be disclosed to anyone.

Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in denying the motion for protective order, as the confidential communication by the client to his attorney was privileged *113and not subject to disclosure. See § 90.502(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2015)1R.L.R. v. State, 116 So.3d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Reversed and remanded.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …n to filing the-instant petition for writ of certiorari, Wads- , worth also filed an appeal of the-trial court’s order. We assigned case number 3D17-1527 to this appeal. See Fla. R. App, P. 9.030(b)(1)(A); Office of the Public Defender v. Lakicevic, 215 So. 3d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (treating an order denying the public defender’s motion for a protective order from a third-party subpoena duces tecum for deposition as a final order reviewable on appeal, rather than via a petition for writ of certiora-ri). We c…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw