Wooten, Honeywell & Kest, P.A. v. Posner, 89-2589
| Decision Date | 22 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-2589,89-2589 |
| Citation | 556 So.2d 1245 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D508 WOOTEN, HONEYWELL & KEST, P.A., Petitioner, v. Lawrence K. POSNER, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
D. Paul McCaskill, John F. Tannian, and David B. King of King & Blackwell, P.A., Orlando, for petitioner.
No Appearance, for respondent.
This is before us on a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order compelling discovery. We issue a writ of certiorari and quash the order compelling discovery, as relates to all interrogatories but interrogatory 8. That one only asks for the identity of persons obtained by the direct independent efforts of the law firm, so the specific objection to that interrogatory is not well taken.
This case involves a lawsuit between attorneys over a fee-split for the referring attorney in a personal injury case. Respondent, as referring attorney, claims he is due more money from a settlement of a personal injury action. Petitioner and the client say he is not due what he demands. Respondent sued petitioner and in the course of the lawsuit posed the following questions by interrogatories:
2. State the following as to all attorneys or law firms who have associated your firm in a personal injury case since 1981 that resulted in the recovery of a total attorney's fee in excess of $200,000:
a. The name, address, telephone number and date of association of the attorney or law firm.
b. The total amount of the recovered attorney's fee.
c. The division of fees between your firm and the associating attorney or law firm.
d. The total amount of hours spent in the case by your firm and the associating attorney or law firm e. Whether the case was settled or tried, and if settled, whether settled before or after trial began.
f. Whether the agreements between your firm and the associating attorney or law firm were the same form agreement(s) as were used with Plaintiff in the Susan Chafin case.
* * * * * *
8. State the name, address and telephone number of any medical or health provider, whether treating or expert, involved in the Chafin case as a direct result of your firm's independent efforts, indicating as to such person his/her status as either expert witness or provider of treatment, and the exact nature of the service rendered.
9. State as to the determination that a 40% fee division with Plaintiff in the Chafin case constituted an excessive fee the following:
* * * * * *
d. Any prior cases in which you determined that a division of an attorney's fee of 40% to an associating attorney or law firm was excessive, whether involving Plaintiff or another attorney or law firm, stating as to each case the name of the case and the name and address of the associating attorney or law firm.
Petitioner responded to each of the above questions by objecting and saying:
Objection, this interrogatory, as framed, is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive, and not calculated to lead to discoverable evidence. Additionally, a response to this interrogatory would tend to violate the attorney-client privilege and ethical obligations of confidentiality as to clients' matters.
The lawsuit filed by respondent is in two counts. The first alleges breach of contract and alleges a customary course of dealings between the parties and then alleges a specific written contract. The specific written contract says respondent and petitioner would divide the fees "in proportion to the legal services to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. State
...Statutes (2000). 2. See Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Estate of Francis Shelley, 827 So.2d 936 (Fla.2002); Wooten, Honeywell & Kest P.A. v. Posner, 556 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987). Courts recognize that there is no adequate r......
-
Dennis v. State of Florida
...Florida Statutes. 2. See Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Estate of Francis Shelley, 827 So. 2d 936 (Fla 2002); Wooten, Honeywell & Kest P.A. v. Posner, 556 So. 2d 1245 (Fla 5th DCA 1990); Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla 1987). Courts recognize that there is no adequat......
-
Caterpillar Indus., Inc. v. Keskes
...constraints in determining what should be discoverable, including a recent case from this court. In Wooten, Honeywell & Kest, P.A. v. Posner, 556 So.2d 1245, 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), this court held: "We agree with petitioner that the requirement to search all of its files for the past eig......
-
Harborside Healthcare, LLC v. Jacobson
...2006) ; then citing Tanchel v. Shoemaker , 928 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ; and then citing Wooten, Honeywell & Kest, P.A. v. Posner , 556 So.2d 1245, 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) ). Similarly, "an order that entitles a party to carte blanche discovery of irrelevant material demonstrate......
-
The continuing story of certiorari.
...1211, 1214-15 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2008). (30) Caterpillar, 639 So. 2d at 1129 n.1. (31) E.g., Wooten, Honeywell & Kest, P.A. v. Posner, 556 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1990); Caterpillar, 639 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1994); Jerry's South, Inc. v. Morran, 582 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1st D.C.A.......