Flechas v. Pitts
138 So. 3d 907
| Miss. | 2014Background
- This is an en banc review of motions challenging multiple Lincoln County Chancery Court orders relating to a broad subpoena duces tecum served May 30, 2012, on attorney Patrick Flechas concerning his files for client Troy Pitts.
- Only matter pending in chancery court at the time was a will contest (devisavit vel non) between competing wills; the subpoena sought essentially all of Flechas’s files across multiple practice areas.
- Flechas moved to quash and asserted attorney-client and work-product privileges; the chancery court denied the motion (Order 1), ruled most documents were excepted from privilege under M.R.E. 502(d)(2), and later found Flechas in contempt and awarded attorney fees (Order 2).
- Flechas sought withdrawal as counsel (motion denied) and then petitioned this Court for extraordinary relief and reconsideration; this Court stayed proceedings and ordered briefing and records.
- The Supreme Court found the chancery court’s blanket denial of privilege improper, vacated Order 1 and Order 3, affirmed the contempt finding as to fees ($692.50) but otherwise reversed and directed specific procedures for relevance and privilege review.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (Flechas) Argument | Respondent (Alyce/Alyee) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valid scope of subpoena duces tecum | Subpoena is overbroad, seeks irrelevant materials beyond the will contest | Subpoena seeks documents necessary for estate/disgorgement claims and to investigate representation | Court: Subpoena must be limited to documents relevant under Rule 26 to the will contest; chancery court must first determine relevance before production |
| Applicability of privilege and work-product protection | Many documents are attorney-client and work-product; blanket production violates privilege and Rule 26(b)(3) protections | Claimed exception under M.R.E. 502(d)(2) because parties claim through same deceased client; thus privilege largely inapplicable | Court: Chancery court erred by applying blanket 502(d)(2) exception; must perform in camera, document-by-document review and require a new privilege log for relevant documents |
| Proper procedure for contested privileged materials | Require careful privilege log and in camera review; protect mental impressions and legal theories | Asserted crime-fraud and estate-related bases to overcome privilege; requested access to sealed materials | Court: Follow Rule 45/26 interplay; require relevance determination, new privilege log, and in camera review explaining rules/exceptions; crime-fraud not properly raised earlier and requires prima facie showing for in camera review |
| Sanctions and contempt for noncompliance | Flechas contends compliance was legally burdensome and privilege-protected, but failed to properly comply | Chancery court held Flechas in contempt for noncompliance and awarded modest fees | Court: Affirmed contempt/fee award as to $692.50 but deferred further sanctions until discovery issues resolved under ordered procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- Graves v. Maples, 950 So.2d 1017 (Miss. 2007) (discusses lawyer-as-witness concerns and counsel withdrawal issues)
- Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Halliburton Co., 826 So.2d 1206 (Miss. 2001) (state rules modeled on federal rules; federal interpretations persuasive)
- West v. West, 891 So.2d 203 (Miss. 2004) (subpoena duces tecum must respect relevance and discovery limits)
- Griffin v. State, 494 So.2d 376 (Miss. 1986) (subpoena must show materiality and purpose to protect witness from irrelevant production)
- Williams v. State, 125 So.2d 535 (Miss. 1960) (historical standards for issuance of subpoenas)
- Mitcham v. Ill. Cent. Gulf R. Co., 515 So.2d 852 (Miss. 1987) (protections of Rule 26(b)(3) apply to documents subpoenaed under Rule 45)
- Hewes v. Langston, 853 So.2d 1237 (Miss. 2003) (work-product protects mental impressions; crime-fraud requires prima facie showing for in camera review)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Jackson v. Morrison, 905 So.2d 1213 (Miss. 2005) (party seeking work-product must show substantial need and undue hardship)
- Mississippi United Methodist Conference v. Brown, 911 So.2d 478 (Miss. 2005) (blanket privilege determinations are insufficient; require in camera, document-by-document analysis)