FLORIDA MARLINS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC, PETITIONER,
v.
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. 893/HC/97/9096, 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 Marlins sought a writ of certiorari to quash a discovery order requiring production of documents in a breach of contract and insurance declaratory judgment action. The appellate court granted the petition, holding that the documents were protected by attorney-client privilege because they contained legal advice from in-house counsel to corporate employees, even though the attorney was not a Florida Bar member at the time.
The court held that the documents are protected by attorney-client privilege. A licensed attorney in any state can invoke attorney-client privilege under Florida law, and communications between corporate in-house counsel and corporate employees concerning legal advice on legal matters are protected by the privilege, regardless of whether the attorney was a Florida Bar member at the time.
[1] Communications between corporate in-house counsel and corporate employees concerning legal advice are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
[2] A licensed attorney in another state may be considered an attorney for purposes of the attorney-client privilege under Florida law.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“For purposes of the attorney-client privilege, Whittle is an attorney pursuant to section 90-502(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), as he is a licensed attorney in the state of Missouri.”
Establishes that attorney-client privilege is not limited to Florida Bar members but applies to attorneys licensed in any state.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Marlins' in-house counsel, attorney Michael Whittle, created documents containing communications about legal matters related to insurance issues. …
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
Petitioner Florida Marlins Baseball Club, LLC, seeks a writ of certiorari to quash an order that directed it to produce documents in its breach of contract and declaratory judgment action filed against its insurer, respondent Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, to recover policy proceeds. We grant the petition and quash the order under review concluding that the documents fell within the scope of attorney-client privilege.
Following the in camera inspection of the relevant documents that the trial court ordered, the court found that the documents fell outside of the scope of the attorney-client privilege because the documents involved communications with attorney Michael Whittle in a capacity other than as the Marlins’ attorney. At the time during which Whittle created the documents, he was not a member of the Florida Bar or an authorized house counsel of the Marlins. The Marlins, however, employed Whittle as Director of Administration and in-house counsel during different periods of his tenure.
For purposes of the attorney-client privilege, Whittle is an attorney pursuant to section 90-502(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), as he is a licensed attorney in the state of Missouri. Furthermore, the attorney-client privilege protects communications on legal matters between corporate in-house counsel and corporate employees. See Tomkins Indus., Inc. v. Warren Tech., Inc., 768 So. 2d 1125, 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that a communication between corporate counsel and corporate employees is protected if the communication concerns legal advice in view of a contentious relationship and in anticipation of litigation).
Our review of the claim of attorney-client privilege is de novo. See United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Roth, 859 So. 2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). We have reviewed the documents in question and find that they are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Our independent review of the documents leads us to the conclusion that Whittle was rendering legal advice not business advice in relation to insurance issues. The relevant documents all contain comments on legal matters from Whittle to employees of the Marlins. The documents are thus privileged. See Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377, 1383 (Fla.1994). The trial court deviated from the essential requirements of the law when it ordered the Marlins to produce these documents.
Petition granted and order quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 997 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…2 So. 2d 1377. The privilege extends to communications between employees and in-house general counsel, whether oral, contained in documents or contained in a database. See Florida Marlins Baseball Club, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 900 So. 2d 720, 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (attorney-client privilege protects communications, including documents from in-house counsel to corporate employees). We believe that the evidence before the trial court established that the LMMS database was used as a mech…1 / 2
-
Herrera v. Jarden Corp., 334 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…ions between employees and in-house general counsel, whether oral, contained in documents or contained in a database.” Id.; see also Fla. Marlins Baseball Club, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy No. 893/HC/97/9096, 900 So. 2d 720, 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“[T]he attorney-client privilege protects communications on legal matters between corporate in-house counsel and corporate employees.”). “The burden of establishing the attorney-client privilege rests on the party claiming…
Authorities Cited
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1994)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Roth, 859 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Yohany Sigler v. State, 768 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Tomkins Indus., Inc. v. Warren Tech., Inc., 768 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)