Gearhart v. Etheridge
| Decision Date | 03 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 28925,28925 |
| Citation | 232 Ga. 638,208 S.E.2d 460 |
| Parties | Walter V. GEARHART v. Bertha W. ETHERIDGE et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Claude E. Hambrick, Atlanta, for appellant.
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, James P. Groton, Charles T. Lester, Jr., Atlanta, for appellees. Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The parties hereto entered into a joint business venture in which many complicated monetary transactions took place over an extended period of time. The venture was not successful and upon the death of Etheridge his executors filed an action in Fulton Superior Court seeking an accounting and a recovery of certain monies claimed to be due. After an extensive hearing the trial judge, sitting as the trior of facts, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Gearhart appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court. Fir a complete statement of the facts and issues involved in that appeal, see Gearhart v. Etheridge, 131 Ga.App. 285, 205 S.E.2d 456. We granted certiorari for the sole purpose of clarifying certain language in the opinion of the Court of Appeals dealing with the privilege that exists between a certified public accountant and his client as provided for in Code Ann. § 84-216. Held:
Code Ann. § 84-216 provides that (Emphasis supplied.)
Among Gearhart's enumerations of error was that 'the trial court erred in allowing the witness, Thomas J. Smith, a certified public accountant for the defendant, to testify about communications between the witness and the defendant, and in overruling the defendant's objection to such testimony.' In affirming the trial court's ruling allowing the certified public accountant to testify the Court of Appeals stated that 'The language of Code Ann. § 84-216 refers to communications 'in anticipation of or pending employment, not his work thereafter."
We conclude that this is an erroneous interpretation of this statute for it lends itself to the conclusion that the account-client privilege is operative only prior to actual employment and evaporates when the questioning extends to the accountants 'work thereafter.' Such interpretation would effectively thwart the privilege. The purpose of the accountant-client privilege is to insure an atmosphere wherein the client will transmit all relevant information to his accountant without fear of any future disclosure in subsequent litigation. Without an atmosphere of confidentiality the client might withhold facts he considers unfavorable to this situation thus rendering the accountant powerless to adequately perform the services he renders.
We conclude, in interpreting the statute, that the emphasized portion of Code Ann. § 84-216 merely provides for the cases where the accountant and his client become embroiled in a controversy between themselves as in an action for compensation or damages. In this situation it becomes necessary for the accountant to testify in order to preserve his right to compensation and/or a clear and unclouded reputation.
However, under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashcraft & Gerel v. Shaw
...Alexander v. Superior Court in and for Maricopa County, 141 Ariz. 157, 685 P.2d 1309, 1315 (1984); Gearhart v. Etheridge, 232 Ga. 638, 208 S.E.2d 460, 461 (1974) (holding "[a]ll communications between the joint clients and the accountant are privileged as to all outside parties, but the pri......
-
Saye v. Deloitte & Touche, Llp
...an accountant and its audit client is unrestrained and freely transmitted without fear of disclosure. See Gearhart v. Etheridge, 232 Ga. 638, 639-640, 208 S.E.2d 460 (1974); Roberts v. Chaple, 187 Ga.App. 123, 124, 369 S.E.2d 482 (1988). Indeed, the Georgia Legislature created a statutory p......
-
Ernst & Ernst v. Underwriters Nat. Assur. Co.
...evidence. The purpose of the accountant-client privilege was well stated by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Gearhart v. Etheridge (1974), 232 Ga. 638, 208 S.E.2d 460, 461: The purpose of the accountant-client privilege is to insure an atmosphere wherein the client will transmit all relevant......
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Gussin
... ... of privacy of individuals in matters involving contracts, domestic disputes, and other civil matters and equity controversies"); see also Gearhart v. Etheridge, 232 Ga. 638, 208 S.E.2d 460, ... Page 563 ... 461 (1974) (noting that the purpose of the privilege is to ensure an atmosphere ... ...
-
Lawyers as "tattletales": a Challenge to the Broad Application of the Attorney-client Privilege and Rule 1.6, Confidentiality of Information
...III.C. [116]. See In re A Special Investigation No. 202, 452 A.2d 458, 462 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1982). [117]. See Gearhart v. Etheridge, 208 S.E.2d 460, 461 (Ga. 1974). [118]. See People v. Paasche, 525 N.W.2d 914, 918 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994) (citing People v. Safiedine, 414 N.W.2d 143, 146 (M......