Should a lawyer assert the lawyer-client privilege in a supplemental proceeding after an unsatisfied judgment?

Plain-English summary

Lawyer A represented a client who held an unsatisfied judgment against Lawyer B. In supplemental proceedings, Lawyer A sought information about the clients who owed Lawyer B money and a list of pending cases in which Lawyer B appeared as counsel of record. Lawyer A asked whether the information sought would be an invasion of the attorney-client relationship.

The committee declined to answer. It explained that because the inquiry did not relate to the inquiring lawyer's own conduct, the committee did not have jurisdiction to answer it. Whether any privilege should be asserted was for Lawyer B and his clients to decide in the first instance, and it would then be for the trial court to determine the extent, if any, to which the privilege should be upheld.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1974, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Code of Professional Responsibility, which has since been replaced. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current Rule 4-1.6 before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the committee say whether the privilege should be asserted?

A: No. The committee declined to issue an opinion because the inquiry did not relate to the inquiring lawyer's own conduct.

Q: Who decides whether the privilege applies, according to the committee?

A: The committee said it is for the affected lawyer and his clients to decide in the first instance, and then for the trial court to determine the extent to which the privilege should be upheld.

Background and rules framework

The committee framed the question as outside its advisory jurisdiction because it concerned the conduct of a lawyer other than the inquirer. The underlying subject, the attorney-client privilege and the duty of confidentiality, corresponds in current practice to Rule 4-1.6 (confidentiality of information) and Model Rule 1.6, although the committee did not reach the merits.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• The opinion did not cite specific Code provisions.

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-74-7/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-74-7-1.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 74-7
June 14, 1974
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
Whether an attorney should assert the lawyer-client privilege in a supplemental proceeding after an unsatisfied judgment is a matter for the attorney and client to decide, and for the trial court to determine. Therefore, no advisory opinion is issued.
Vice Chairman Daniels stated the opinion of the Committee:
Lawyer A represents a client who has an unsatisfied judgment against Lawyer B. In supplemental proceedings, Lawyer A has sought information regarding clients who owe B money, and a list of pending cases in which B appears as counsel of record. Lawyer A asks whether the information sought "would be an invasion of the attorney-client relationship."
Since the inquiry does not relate to the inquiring lawyer's own conduct, the Committee does not have jurisdiction to answer the inquiry. Whether any privilege should be asserted is for Lawyer B and his clients to decide in the first instance. Then it will be for the trial court to determine the extent, if any, to which the privilege should be upheld.