F. STEVEN HITCHCOCK, PETITIONER,
v.
PROUDFOOT CONSULTING COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ANTHONY PROSSER AND HIGHLAND CONSULTING GROUP, A MARYLAND CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS
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.
Florida appellate court quashed an order compelling deposition testimony where petitioner asserted Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for questions potentially exposing him to criminal liability for unauthorized practice of law, requiring question-by-question review instead of blanket compulsion.
A trial court must apply a question-by-question approach when a deponent asserts Fifth Amendment privilege in response to deposition questions that might provide a foundation for criminal prosecution, rather than issuing a broad order compelling all answers.
[1] When a deponent asserts Fifth Amendment privilege in response to deposition questions that might expose him to criminal liability, the trial court must conduct a question…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 record before us demonstrates that petitioner was presented at deposition with questions which might provide a foundation for a possible criminal prosecution for the unauthorized practice of law”
Court's explanation for why Fifth Amendment privilege was properly asserted and why question-by-question review was required
Petitioner Hitchcock was deposed in a civil case and asserted Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to questions that could…
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 Unauthorized Practice Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner F. Steven Hitchcock seeks certiorari review of an order adopting a special magistrate’s denial of petitioner’s renewed motion for protective order and granting a motion to compel deposition answers, overruling petitioner’s claim of Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
We grant this petition and quash the order in this case because the record be*1184fore us demonstrates that petitioner was presented at deposition with questions which might provide a foundation for a possible criminal prosecution for the unauthorized practice of law. DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Co., 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (citing Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608, 74 L.Ed.2d 430 (1983)). While it also appears that the deposition included questions that were completely innocuous, to which petitioner asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege, and some questions to which the privilege may have been waived by petitioner, the special magistrate entered a broad, sweeping order compelling petitioner to answer all of the questions posed. A question-by-question approach was warranted instead. Failure to apply that approach in this case constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law, causing petitioner material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings below for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal. Magid v. Winter, 654 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
The order on review is quashed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
GROSS, C.J., TAYLOR and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Herman v. J.P. Morgan Sec., Inc., 35 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ngly, we quash the trial court’s order denying all discovery and remand with directions to the trial court to consider these assertions in entertaining petitioner’s requests for discovery, item by item. Compare Hitchcock v. Proudfoot Consulting Co., 19 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). STEVENSON, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Eric v. Ross, 29 So. 3d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…pursuant to section 948.20 and that a defendant’s prior, non-drug felony convictions do not bar the imposition of a drug offender probation sentence under section 948.20. See Nelson v. State, 16 So. 3d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); see also State v. Cox, 19 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Nelson v. State, 17 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). We thus reverse the trial court’s denial of Ross’s motion for imposition of an alternative sentence pursuant to section 948.20 and remand the case so that the trial court may r…
Authorities Cited
- Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983)
- DeLISI v. Bankers Ins. Co., 436 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Magid v. Elliot C. Winter, 654 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)