Category Archives: Lawyer ethics duties re subpoena for client confidential documents and information

Florida Supreme Court finds that attorney-client privilege prohibits inquiries into lawyer/doctor referral relationships

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the important very recent Florida Supreme Court opinion which prohibit inquiries by defense counsel into referral relationships between the plaintiff’s law firm and a physician.  The case is Worley v. Central Florida Young Men’s Christian Ass’n, Inc., No. SC15-1086 (Fla. SC April 13, 2017).  The Florida Supreme Court opinion is here:  http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2017/sc15-1086.pdf

The Florida Supreme Court considered the case because of a certified conflict under art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. in the opinions of the Fifth District Court of Appeal (in this case) and the Second District Court of Appeal (in Burt v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 603 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

According to the opinion, Heather Worley was a plaintiff in a lawsuit against YMCA after she allegedly fell in a Florida YMCA parking lot.  Worley was represented by Morgan & Morgan.  At Worley’s depositions, YMCA’s lawyer asked if she was referred to her specialists by her attorneys and Worley’s lawyer objected on the ground that the information was attorney-client privileged.

YMCA then served interrogatories directed to specific doctors employed by three medical providers with whom Worley treated and also served a supplemental request to produce to Morgan & Morgan, to attempt to establish the existence of a referral relationship between Morgan & Morgan and the treating physicians.  The opinion states that “(t)hese efforts were based on YMCA’s suspicions that there was a ‘cozy agreement’ between Morgan & Morgan and the physicians, due to the amounts of Worley’s medical bills.”

Worley objected (through Morgan & Morgan) and stated that the discovery requests were “overbroad, vague, unduly and financially burdensome, irrelevant and in violation [of] allowable discovery pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4).”  She also contended that Morgan & Morgan does not maintain “information for treating physicians as in this matter, or otherwise.”

At a hearing on Worley’s objections, “the trial court only sustained Worley’s objection to the question regarding whether she was referred to the doctors by her attorneys and ‘did not address Worley’s objections to YMCA’s other outstanding discovery requests at that time.’”  The Fifth DCA upheld the lower court’s order and relied on Florida district court decisions which held that the financial relationship between a law firm and a plaintiff’s treating physician is discoverable if evidence of a referral relationship can be shown.  Those cases relied upon the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1999).

In its 4-3 decision, the Court rejected the application of Boecher and found that the defense attorneys were prohibited from inquiring about the referral relationships between plaintiff’s firm, Morgan & Morgan, and Sea Spine Orthopedic Institute stating that “(a)llowing further discovery into a possible relationship between the physician and the plaintiff’s law firm would only serve to uncover evidence that, even if relevant, would require the production of communications and materials that are protected by attorney-client privilege.”  “We do not agree with the Fifth District’s attempt to circumvent the attorney-client privilege out of perceived necessity. The attorney-client privilege is the oldest confidential communication privilege known in the common law.”

“Even in cases where a plaintiff’s medical bills appear to be inflated for the purposes of litigation, we do not believe that engaging in costly and time-consuming discovery to uncover a “cozy agreement” between the law firm and a treating physician is the appropriate response. We are concerned that this type of discovery would have a chilling effect on doctors who may refuse to treat patients who could end up in litigation out of fear of becoming embroiled in the litigation themselves. Moreover, we worry that discovery orders such as the one in this case will inflate the costs of litigation to the point that some plaintiffs will be denied access to the courts, as attorneys will no longer be willing to advance these types of costs. Finally, attempting to discover this information requires the disclosure of materials that would otherwise be protected under the attorney-client privilege.”

The Supreme Court opinion quashed Fifth DCA’s decision permitting the discovery and approved the decision of the Second DCA.

Bottom line: This case is important since it addresses and appears to settle the question of whether the defense in a personal injury case (or any case) can use discovery to attempt to determine if there is a “cozy” relationship between the plaintiff’s law firm and treating medical providers.  The opinion found that the information sought was protected by the attorney/client privilege, §90.502(2), Fla. Stat., and that the discovery was prohibited.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

29605 U.S. Highway 19, N., Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under .S. Supreme Court, attorney/client privilege, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege discovery of referral relationships with doctors, Confidentiality and privilege, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics duties re subpoena for client confidential documents and information, prohibition of inquiries into lawyer/doctor referrals

ABA issues formal ethics opinion addressing lawyer’s duties upon receipt of subpoena or other process for client confidential documents

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent American Bar Association Formal Opinion 473, which provides guidance to lawyers regarding ethical duties and obligations under the Model Rules upon receipt of a subpoena or other compulsory process for client documents and information.  ABA Formal Opinion 473 (February 17, 2016) is here: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/abanews/FormalOpinion_473.pdf.

According to the opinion, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility was asked to review ABA Formal Opinion 94-385 (July 5, 1994) regarding a subpoena for a lawyer’s client files since ABA Model Rule 1.6(b)(6) was adopted in 2002 and which states that: “A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to comply with other law or court order.”

When Formal Opinion 94-385 was issued, Model Rule 1.6(b) specifically required a lawyer to disclose confidential information in only two situations: (i) to prevent certain crimes, and (ii) to establish certain claims or defenses on behalf of the lawyer.  Formal Opinion 94-385 advised that the lawyer “must comply with the final orders of a court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction requiring the lawyer to give information about a client.”

The opinion states that the model rule and Formal Opinion 94-385 do not address “complex, critical, and fact-intensive questions on how to respond” when the lawyer receives a subpoena or other process which is not a “final order of a court or other tribunal”.  The opinion addresses these issues and provides guidance to lawyers regarding their duties and obligations.  The opinion states that a lawyer who receives a subpoena or other compulsory process (but not a court order) for documents or information relating to the representation of a client (which is, of course, confidential) has multiple ethical duties and obligations, including:

  1. The lawyer “must notify—or attempt to notify—the client.  For former clients, the lawyer must make reasonable efforts to reach the client by, for example, internet search, phone call, fax, email or other electronic communications, and letter to the client’s last known address.”
  1. If the client is available, the lawyer must consult with the client about how to respond. If instructed by the client (or if the client is unavailable), the lawyer must assert all reasonable claims against disclosure and seek to limit the subpoena or other initial demand on any reasonable ground.  Such a consultation should include a discussion regarding the applicability of the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
  1. If the client wants to challenge the subpoena or process, the lawyer should challenge “on any reasonable ground.”  If that challenge fails, the lawyer should consult with the client about appeal options.
  1. If there is an order to disclose confidential or privileged information and the client is available, a lawyer must consult with the client about whether to produce the information or appeal the order.
  1. The lawyer should seek appropriate protective orders or other protective arrangements so that access to the information is limited to the court or other tribunal ordering its disclosure and to persons having a need to know.
  1. If the lawyer discloses documents and information, whether it is in response to a demand or an order, and regardless of whether client is available, the lawyer may reveal information only to the extent reasonably necessary.
  1. If the client and the lawyer disagree about how to respond to the initial demand or to an order requiring disclosure, the lawyer should consider withdrawing from the representation pursuant to Model Rule 1.16.
  1. If the lawyer is unable to find the client, the lawyer must “assert all reasonable objections and claims when the lawyer receives the initial demand.” If those “objections and claims” are rejected by the tribunal, the lawyer must produce the information to the extent reasonably necessary to comply with the order; however, the lawyer “is not ethically required to take an appeal on behalf of a client whom the lawyer cannot locate after due diligence.
  1. If there is an order to disclose and the client is unavailable, the lawyer is not ethically required to appeal.

With regard to fees for the consultation and services regarding the response to the subpoena/process, the lawyer should consult with the client regarding whether responding to the demand was included in the scope of work under the fee agreement.  If not, the lawyer should discuss the fee for doing so.  Regardless, the lawyer may still “be required to challenge the initial demand” under the ethics rules even if the services were not included in the initial fee agreement.  The opinion states that a lawyer “should consider” providing for this circumstance in the lawyer’s retainer agreements.

Bottom line: This ABA Formal Opinion provides guidance regarding issues involving client confidentiality which lawyers confront fairly frequently and that I frequently address in my ethics presentations.  The opinion’s guidance is important and should be considered by lawyers who receive a subpoena or process demanding client confidential information, regardless of whether the lawyer’s jurisdiction’s ethics rules include the specific language in Model Rule 1.6(b)(6).

Note to Florida lawyers:  Florida Bar Rule 4-1.6 does not include the specific language in ABA Model Rule 1.6(b)(6) that: “A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to comply with other law or court order”; however, Florida Bar Rule 4-1.6(d) states that: “When required by a tribunal to reveal confidential information, a lawyer may first exhaust all appellate remedies.”  In addition, Florida Bar Rule 4-1.6(f) states that: “When disclosure is mandated or permitted, the lawyer must disclose no more information than is required to meet the requirements or accomplish the purposes of this rule.”

The ethical duties and obligations regarding subpoenas and other process addressed in the opinion should apply to Florida lawyers upon receipt of a subpoena or other process to provide confidential documents/information.

Be careful out there!

If you have any questions about this Ethics Alert or need assistance, analysis, and guidance regarding these or any other ethics, risk management, or other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Disclaimer:  this Ethics Alert  is not an advertisement and does not contain any legal advice, and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under ABA formal opinions, ABA formal opinions ethics duties re subpoena or other process for confidential documents, Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, lawyer confidentiality, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics duties re subpoena for client confidential documents and information, Lawyer ethics opinions