Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that party does not waive the attorney-client privilege merely because documents protected by the privilege “are relevant to or may assist the [opposing] lawyers in their defense”
• noting that “if the client or attorney testifies as to privileged communications in part, this serves as a waiver as to the remainder of the privileged consultation or consultations concerning the same subject”
• noting that party impliedly waives attorney-client privilege when it “has filed a claim, based upon a matter ordinarily privileged, the proof of which will necessarily require that the privileged matter be offered in evidence”
• noting attorney-client privilege waiver is not favored in Florida and refusing to find waiver based on the at-issue doctrine
• the memo already had been produced to the law firm when it was representing plaintiffs
• “When attorney-client communications are disclosed regarding a certain matter, there exists a limited waiver with respect to communications on that same, specific matter.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).