From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tomkins Ind. v. Warren Tech

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 18, 2000
768 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Summary

holding that a communication between corporate counsel and corporate employees is protected if the communication concerns legal advice in view of a contentious relationship and in anticipation of litigation

Summary of this case from Florida Marlins Baseball Club, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. 893/HC/97/9096

Opinion

No. 3D00-1774.

August 16, 2000. Rehearing Denied October 18, 2000.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Philip Bloom, J.

McDermott, Wlll Emery, and Steven E. Siff, Miami, for petitioner.

Krupnick Campbell Malone Roselli Buser Slama Hancock, and Walter G. Campbell, Fort Lauderdale; Curtis, and Edward R. Curtis, Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.

Before COPE, GODERICH and SHEVIN, JJ.


Tomkins Industries, Inc., seeks a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court order granting plaintiff, Warren Technology, Inc.'s challenge to a special master's report. We grant certiorari and quash the order.

At issue in this case is whether a draft of a proposed letter from Tomkins to Warren that Tomkins forwarded to its corporate counsel for suggestions and advice is protected by attorney-client privilege. The draft contained handwritten notations by Tomkins to counsel and from counsel to Tomkins. We hold that the communicacertiorari to quash order by the Circuit in this case satisfies the test enunciated in Southern Bell Tel. Tel. v. Deason, 632 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 1994), for determining whether a communication between corporate employees and corporate counsel is protected by the attorney-client privilege.

The record demonstrates that this draft was forwarded to counsel for legal advice in view of the contentious relationship with Warren and Tomkins's anticipation of litigation with Warren. As such, the corporate counsel was rendering legal advice not business advice. Moreover, we are unpersuaded by Warren's assertions that the crime or fraud exception nullifies any possible privilege Tomkins is claiming. Warren has failed to produce evidence sufficient to support its theory of fraud. See American Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). We have not arrived at a stage in our criminal jurisprudence where being obnoxious or obstreperous rises to the level of criminal or fraudulent behavior.

Because the order in this case creates a situation "where there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice," Doe v. Archdiocese of Catholic Church of Miami, 721 So.2d 428, 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), we grant the writ, quash the order and remand with instructions that the special master's report be adopted.

Certiorari granted.


Summaries of

Tomkins Ind. v. Warren Tech

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 18, 2000
768 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

holding that a communication between corporate counsel and corporate employees is protected if the communication concerns legal advice in view of a contentious relationship and in anticipation of litigation

Summary of this case from Florida Marlins Baseball Club, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. 893/HC/97/9096
Case details for

Tomkins Ind. v. Warren Tech

Case Details

Full title:TOMKINS INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, v. WARREN TECHNOLOGY, INC, f/k/a…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Oct 18, 2000

Citations

768 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

Florida Marlins Baseball Club, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. 893/HC/97/9096

For purposes of the attorney-client privilege, Whittle is an attorney pursuant to section 90-502(1)(a),…

Altheim v. Geico General Insurance Company

In some instances, while an attorney is involved in the communication, the communication appears a purely…