Fla. Stat. § 90.502 — Lawyer-client privilege

Original Text Simplified Text

(1) For purposes of this section:

  1. (a) A “lawyer” is a person authorized, or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized, to practice law in any state or nation.
  2. (b) A “client” is any person, public officer, corporation, association, or other organization or entity, either public or private, who consults a lawyer with the purpose of obtaining legal services or who is rendered legal services by a lawyer.
  3. (c) A communication between lawyer and client is “confidential” if it is not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than:
    1. 1. Those to whom disclosure is in furtherance of the rendition of legal services to the client.
    2. 2. Those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication.

(2) A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, the contents of confidential communications when such other person learned of the communications because they were made in the rendition of legal services to the client.

(3) The privilege may be claimed by:

  1. (a) The client.
  2. (b) A guardian or conservator of the client.
  3. (c) The personal representative of a deceased client.
  4. (d) A successor, assignee, trustee in dissolution, or any similar representative of an organization, corporation, or association or other entity, either public or private, whether or not in existence.
  5. (e) The lawyer, but only on behalf of the client. The lawyer’s authority to claim the privilege is presumed in the absence of contrary evidence.

(4) There is no lawyer-client privilege under this section when:

  1. (a) The services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew was a crime or fraud.
  2. (b) A communication is relevant to an issue between parties who claim through the same deceased client.
  3. (c) A communication is relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to the client or by the client to the lawyer, arising from the lawyer-client relationship.
  4. (d) A communication is relevant to an issue concerning the intention or competence of a client executing an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness, or concerning the execution or attestation of the document.
  5. (e) A communication is relevant to a matter of common interest between two or more clients, or their successors in interest, if the communication was made by any of them to a lawyer retained or consulted in common when offered in a civil action between the clients or their successors in interest.

Purpose of the Privilege: This is one of the oldest and most important privileges. It exists to encourage full and honest communication between clients and their attorneys, allowing clients to seek legal advice without fear that their words will be used against them.

Elements of the Privilege: For a communication to be protected, it must be:

  • A communication between a lawyer and a client.
  • Made in confidence (i.e., not in the presence of unnecessary third parties).
  • For the primary purpose of seeking or providing legal advice or services.

Who Holds the Privilege? The privilege belongs to and is controlled by the client. An attorney can claim the privilege on behalf of the client, but only the client can choose to waive it.

Exceptions to the Privilege: The privilege is not absolute. There is no protection for communications when:

  • Crime-Fraud Exception: The client was seeking the lawyer's services to help commit a future crime or fraud.
  • Disputes Through a Deceased Client: Multiple parties are all claiming rights through the same deceased client (e.g., a will contest).
  • Lawyer-Client Disputes: The communication is relevant to a dispute between the lawyer and the client themselves (e.g., a malpractice claim or a dispute over fees).
  • Lawyer as an Attesting Witness: The communication relates to a document (like a will) where the lawyer also acted as an attesting witness.
  • Joint Clients: Two or more clients consulted the same lawyer on a matter of common interest, and those clients are now suing each other.