Greenberg Traurig Hoffman Lipoff Rosen & Quentel, P.A. v. Bolton
1998 WL 65384, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1355, 706 So. 2d 97 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney cannot be compelled by a court to accept service of process for a client in a matter for which the attorney was not retained; however, non-privileged information such as a client's whereabouts and pre-existing financial documents held by the attorney are discoverable by a judgment creditor.
Facts:
- In 1991, David Bolton obtained a final judgment against Marie Buscemi.
- Bolton made several unsuccessful attempts to serve Buscemi with a notice of deposition in order to execute the judgment.
- Bolton learned that the law firm Greenberg Traurig was representing Buscemi in a separate, unrelated pending court matter.
- Bolton then served Greenberg Traurig with a notice of deposition in the original case (in which they did not represent Buscemi), seeking to discover her whereabouts and information related to her assets.
Procedural Posture:
- A final judgment was entered in favor of David Bolton against Marie Buscemi in a Florida Circuit Court (trial court).
- In post-judgment proceedings, Bolton served a notice of deposition on the law firm Greenberg Traurig, which was not representing Buscemi in that case.
- Greenberg Traurig filed motions for a protective order and to quash the subpoenas in the trial court.
- The trial court granted Greenberg Traurig's motions, but also ordered the firm to accept service of the notice of deposition on behalf of Buscemi.
- Greenberg Traurig, as petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the District Court of Appeal of Florida (intermediate appellate court) to quash the part of the order compelling them to accept service.
- David Bolton, as cross-petitioner, filed a cross-petition for a writ of certiorari with the same court to quash the part of the order granting the protective 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:
Under Florida law, can a trial court order an attorney to accept service of process for a client in a matter where the firm does not represent the client, and does the attorney-client privilege protect the client's whereabouts and asset information from discovery by a judgment creditor?
Opinions:
Majority - PER CURIAM
No, to both questions. A court cannot order an attorney to accept service for a client in a matter for which the attorney is not retained, and the attorney-client privilege does not shield the client's whereabouts or pre-existing asset information from discovery. First, the court held that under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(b), service upon an attorney is only appropriate when that attorney represents the party in the specific matter at issue. Citing Harrison-French v. Elmore, the court reasoned that an attorney's representation is limited to the purpose for which they were retained, and a court lacks authority to order an attorney to undertake other matters, such as accepting service in a case for which they were not hired. Second, the court determined that the information sought by Bolton was not protected by the attorney-client privilege. It cited legal treatises and precedent establishing that a client's identity and address are not privileged communications. Furthermore, it held that financial documents that are not privileged in the client's possession cannot be shielded from discovery simply by transferring them to an attorney.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies two important boundaries in legal practice: the scope of an attorney's agency and the limits of the attorney-client privilege. It reinforces the principle that an attorney's duties are strictly defined by the scope of their retention, preventing courts from compelling them to act for a client in unrelated matters. Simultaneously, it curtails the use of the attorney-client privilege as a shield in post-judgment proceedings, affirming that factual information like a client's address and pre-existing financial documents are discoverable. This provides a clear path for judgment creditors to obtain information needed to collect on judgments, preventing debtors from using their attorneys to hide.
