116 So. 3d 570
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Minor R.L.R., adjudicated dependent and in DCF custody, repeatedly absconded from placements; by 2013 he had run away again and DCF sought his location.
- Court-appointed pro bono Attorneys Ad Litem (AALs) learned R.L.R.’s whereabouts during representation; he expressly instructed them not to disclose it.
- Trial court ordered the AALs to disclose the minor’s location, finding disclosure necessary for the “proper administration of justice,” not on any statutory exception to confidentiality.
- AALs refused, asserting attorney-client privilege and Florida Rules of Professional Conduct obligations; the trial court stayed the order pending appeal.
- The appellate court treated the mandamus petition as certiorari, examined whether any attorney-client privilege exception applied, and found none applicable under the facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court can compel attorneys to disclose a minor client’s location obtained in confidence during representation | DCF/trial court: disclosure is required for proper administration of justice because the minor is a danger to himself and DCF needs to protect him | AAL/R.L.R.: information is privileged under Fla. Stat. §90.502 and Rule 4-1.6; no consent or applicable exception authorizes disclosure | Court held disclosure not permitted; no recognized exception (including danger-to-self) overrides attorney-client privilege |
| Whether Rule 4-1.6 exceptions (prevent crime or prevent death/substantial bodily harm to another) apply | Trial court: public safety and child welfare interests justify disclosure under a broad administration-of-justice rationale | AAL/R.L.R.: Rule’s exceptions do not include preventing harm to the client; judge expressly found the enumerated exceptions do not apply | Court held neither Rule exception applied and danger-to-self is not an exception; privilege stands |
| Whether a "dependency exception" to privilege exists in Florida | Trial court/DCF: dependency context warrants a new exception for child safety | AAL/R.L.R.: creating such an exception would improperly abridge statutory and ethical confidentiality obligations; only legislature or bar can adopt a new rule | Court refused to carve out a new dependency exception; rule-making for exceptions is legislative/Florida Bar function |
| Whether compelling disclosure departs from essential requirements of law and is reviewable by certiorari | AALs: order forces breach of privilege with no appellate remedy | State/trial court: public-interest rationale outweighed privilege | Court granted certiorari and quashed the order as a departure from essential requirements of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1981) (attorney-client privilege promotes full and frank communication)
- United States v. Bauer, 132 F.3d 504 (9th Cir. 1997) (attorney-client privilege is a foundational confidential communication privilege)
- Suarez v. Hillcrest Dev. of So. Fla., 742 So.2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (addressed disclosure of debtor’s address in post-trial debtor-creditor contexts)
- In re Dependency of M.S.R., 271 P.3d 234 (Wash. 2012) (recognized confidentiality of attorney–child communications in dependency proceedings)
- Ex parte R.D.N., 918 So.2d 100 (Ala. 2006) (attorney in dependency proceedings owes same confidentiality duties as in other matters)