Pa. Estate Lawyer Must Give Ex-Client's File to Plaintiffs Counsel in Fla. Will Contest
The Superior Court has ruled that a Pennsylvania estate lawyer cannot assert attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine to quash a subpoena seeking her ex-client's entire file for use in a Florida will contest action.
November 01, 2018 at 12:45 PM
3 minute read
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that a Pennsylvania estate lawyer cannot assert attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine to quash a subpoena seeking her ex-client's entire file for use in a Florida will contest action.
According to Superior Court President Judge Susan Peikes Gantman's nonprecedential Oct. 23 opinion in Huber v. Noonan, West Palm Beach, Florida-based attorney Jami Huber is representing several relatives of decedent Clara Anna Claitor in a lawsuit filed in Osceola County, Florida, challenging Claitor's revised trust. The revised trust, which was prepared with the help of a Florida attorney, altered a trust originally prepared by Pennsylvania attorney Susan Noonan and served to cut out Huber's clients in favor of making Claitor's great-niece, Karen Nannette Woods, the sole beneficiary.
For the purposes of the Florida action, Huber subpoenaed Claitor's entire estate file from Noonan, but Noonan, arguing that the documents were privileged, filed a motion to quash the subpoena/motion for a protective order in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas.
Huber countered that the trial court should apply Florida law, which has a “testamentary exception” to the attorney-client privilege that would make the documents sought discoverable.
Ultimately, Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas Judge J. Brian Johnson largely sided with Huber, granting Noonan's motion only to the extent that the subpoena requested ”'opinion work product,'” and denied the motion in all other respects, Gantman said.
Johnson found that there is an actual conflict between Florida law and Pennsylvania law, which does not have a testamentary exception.
Johnson also determined that Florida had “the largest interest in the outcome of the underlying litigation.”
“Florida is where the underlying litigation is pending; Florida is where the defendants in that litigation reside; Florida is the situs of the trusts at issue in the underlying litigation; and the circuit court in and for Osceola County, Florida, probate division is where the ultimate outcome of the underlying case will be decided,” Johnson said.
On appeal, Noonan argued that Pennsylvania law should apply to the dispute because Pennsylvania has the greater policy interest in applying its attorney-client privilege.
But Gantman, joined by Judges Lillian Harris Ransom and Maria McLaughlin, disagreed, finding that the dispute was governed by Florida law.
“We agree a conflict exists between Florida and Pennsylvania law on this privilege and approve of the trial court's choice of law analysis,” Gantman said. “The primary action is the estate case pending in Florida. Pennsylvania is not the forum state for that litigation, and Florida has the principal interest in its resolution. On the other hand, Pennsylvania has no interest in the outcome of the Florida case and is involved due only to a subpoena derivative of the Florida case. Thus, we cannot allow Pennsylvania indirectly to control the Florida estate litigation and defer to Florida law, which has seen fit to adapt to the particular circumstances at issue, by way of its testamentary exception to the attorney/client privilege.”
Counsel for Huber, Zachary Cohen of Lesavoy Butz & Seitz in Allentown, said he was pleased with the result but slightly disappointed the court didn't use the case as an opportunity to adopt a testamentary exception in Pennsylvania.
Noonan's attorney, Paul Troy of Kane, Pugh, Knoell, Troy & Kramer in Norristown, could not be reached for comment.
(Copies of the 15-page opinion in Huber v. Noonan, PICS No. 18-1337, are available at http://at.law.com/PICS.)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
3 minute readDe-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
Risk Mitigation: Employee Engagement Results in Fewer Lawsuits (and Other Benefits)
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250