MILLAN LAW FIRM v. ZAMBRANO (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MILLAN LAW FIRM, P.A., Petitioner, v. Carlos ZAMBRANO, Respondent.

No. 3D21-1726

Decided: December 01, 2021

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

T.P. Murphy's Law P.A., and Thomas P. Murphy, for petitioner. Perlman, Bajandas, Yevoli & Albright, and Benjamin L. Reiss and Nima Tahmassebi (Fort Lauderdale), for respondent.

Upon consideration, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied. See E. Air Lines v. Gellert, 431 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (holding that records of payments made by client to their attorney do not implicate the attorney-client or work-product privileges); Finol v. Finol, 869 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (dismissing certiorari petition in which petitioner asserted his billing and payment records were protected by the attorney-client privilege and not subject to discovery; noting that the records sought were relevant and further noting that if the records contained descriptions of services rendered which would reveal the mental impressions and opinions of counsel, that information should be redacted as privileged); In re Slaughter, 694 F.2d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 1982) (observing that “matters involving the receipt of fees from a client are not generally privileged.”)

Petition denied.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network