Dean v. Dean
607 So.2d 494 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The attorney-client privilege protects the identity of a client when the client's subjective purpose was to consult the attorney for legal services, even if no fee is paid, no formal retainer is signed, and the attorney's resulting action is merely to act as a conduit for the return of property.
Facts:
- During the dissolution of marriage proceedings between Ruth and Roger Dean, Roger Dean's business was burgled.
- Two duffel bags containing personal items and a large sum of cash ($35,000-$40,000) were stolen.
- An unidentified person telephoned attorney Barry Krischer, seeking legal advice on how to return property.
- The person made it a condition of the consultation that Krischer keep their identity confidential.
- Krischer advised the person that the best method was to turn the property over to an attorney to deliver to law enforcement.
- Following two meetings and a phone call, the stolen duffel bags, without the cash, were delivered to Krischer's office.
- Krischer did not follow his standard office procedures for opening a new client file and did not receive a fee.
- Krischer then delivered the bags to the police, stating they might be connected to Roger Dean.
Procedural Posture:
- In a pending dissolution of marriage case, Roger Dean's attorney served a subpoena for deposition on attorney Barry Krischer.
- At the deposition, Krischer refused to disclose the identity of a person who had consulted him, asserting the attorney-client privilege.
- Roger Dean filed a motion to compel testimony in the trial court.
- The trial court granted the motion to compel, finding that no attorney-client relationship existed.
- Ruth Dean and Barry Krischer petitioned the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, for a writ of certiorari to quash the trial court's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the attorney-client privilege protect the identity of an individual who consults an attorney for legal advice on how to return stolen property, where the attorney subsequently acts as a conduit for the property's return?
Opinions:
Majority - Farmer, J.
Yes. The attorney-client privilege protects the identity of the individual because the privilege's existence is determined by the client's subjective intent to seek legal advice, not by the nature of the attorney's subsequent actions. The court's analysis must focus on the perspective of the person seeking the legal consultation, not on what the lawyer does afterward. Here, the unidentified person specifically sought legal advice from someone they knew to be a lawyer and conditioned the entire interaction on confidentiality. Providing legal advice is, in itself, a legal service, making the consultation privileged regardless of whether a fee was paid, a formal retainer was executed, or the attorney's role was limited to acting as a 'conduit.' Furthermore, this case falls under the 'last-link' exception to the general rule that a client's identity is not privileged, as revealing the client's identity would expose them to prosecution for the very criminal act about which they sought counsel.
Dissenting - Glickstein, C.J.
No. The attorney-client privilege does not apply because the attorney was not acting in his professional capacity and no true attorney-client relationship was formed. The evidence indicates the unnamed party intended for the attorney to act merely as an agent or conduit for the delivery of property, a service completely unrelated to legal representation. The attorney's own description of his role as a 'conduit,' combined with the lack of a fee and the failure to follow standard client intake procedures, shows he was not providing legal services. Therefore, the communications, including the client's identity, are not protected by the privilege.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the attorney-client privilege in Florida by adopting a broad, client-centered perspective. It clarifies that the formation of the privilege hinges on the client's subjective intent to seek legal advice, minimizing the importance of formal arrangements like fees or retainer agreements. The ruling solidifies the 'last-link' doctrine, which protects a client's identity when its disclosure would incriminate the client for the past conduct that prompted the legal consultation. This precedent provides strong protection for individuals seeking to rectify past wrongdoing with legal guidance, encouraging them to consult counsel without fear that the lawyer will be compelled to become a witness against them.
Unlock the full brief for Dean v. Dean