STATE OF FLORIDA, FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS, PETITIONER,
v.
STEPHEN MACNAMARA, 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 Florida Commission on Ethics sought review of an administrative law judge's discovery orders protecting attorney-client privileged documents and fee information in an ethics investigation. The court granted the petition and remanded, allowing discovery of most documents with only the fee and retainer amounts redacted, based on the respondent's willingness to produce the materials.
The attorney-client privilege does not prevent discovery of documents and testimony describing the nature of legal services rendered, though the amount of fees paid and retainer amounts may be redacted. The court remands for the administrative law judge to order production of discovery with only fee and retainer amounts redacted, and permits the Commission to seek fee information later if a violation is found.
[1] Certiorari review is generally not granted for orders denying discovery.
[2] The attorney-client privilege does not protect invoices for services rendered, documents describing the nature of those services, or testimony concerning those services w…
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 administrative law judge ruled that the attorney-client privilege prevented discovery of the documents as well as invoices for services rendered to the client, documents describing the nature of those services, and interrogatory and deposition testimony concerning those services.”
Describes the lower court's initial ruling based on attorney-client privilege protection
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Commission on Ethics sought discovery of documents, invoices, and testimony regarding services provided by respondent's attorney to his client in …
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
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, the State of Florida, Commission on Ethics, has petitioned this court for review of non-final orders of an administrative law judge denying discov ery pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100 and Florida Statutes section 120.68(1). The administrative law judge ruled that the attorney-client privilege prevented discovery of the documents as well as invoices for services rendered to the client, documents describing the nature of those services, and interrogatory and deposition testimony concerning those services.1
Respondent states he has obtained permission from his client to produce the information requested, conditioned on the redaction of the amount that Respondent was paid and the amount of his retainer. Given Respondent’s willingness to produce these documents subject to these conditions, we remand to the administrative law judge to order production of the discovery sought by Petitioner, with the amount of fees paid and the retainer amount redacted. The amount of fees may be relevant to the potential penalty phase of this proceeding pursuant to section 112.317, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, we remand without prejudice for Petitioner to seek the amount of the retainer and fees charged to this private client during any relevant time periods, should Respondent be found in violation of section 112.311, et seq., Florida Statutes (the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees).
Petition granted, and the administrative law judge’s orders granting Respondent’s motion for protection, and order denying Petitioner’s motion to compel, are quashed.
BOOTH, MINER and KAHN, JJ„ concur. . Generally certiorari review is not granted for orders denying discovery. See Adventure Marine and Outdoor, Inc. v. Brennan, 807 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). However, the parties have briefed the issue, and due to the highly unusual concession made by Respondent, we are not prohibited from deciding this issue.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitney Info. Network v. Council OF Better Bus. Bureaus, Inc., 957 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…s. of Fla. v. Izquierdo, 899 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Beekie v. Morgan, 751 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). The First District has not yet done so, but does not have a hard and fast rule against such review. Fla. Comm’n on Ethics v. MacNamara, 833 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). This court has not always adhered to our current position of not reviewing these petitions. In Brennan v. Board of Public Instruction, 244 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), we granted a petition for certiorari and quashed an orde…
Authorities Cited
- Adventure Marine & Outdoor, Inc. v. Brennan, 807 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)