## Facts

- Roadhouse Grill, Inc. retained attorney John G. Pozo (then with Miller, Kagan, Rodriguez & Silver, P.A.) to represent it in litigation arising from an employee’s on-the-job injury.
- The employee pursued workers’ compensation and personal injury claims; Roadhouse ultimately settled those claims.
- After settling, Roadhouse sued Pozo, his former firm, and Roadhouse’s workers’ compensation carrier (Humana, Inc.) alleging legal malpractice and civil conspiracy connected to the handling and settlement of the employee’s claims.
- During discovery in the malpractice case, Roadhouse sought testimony from Pozo about communications and matters from his prior representation.
- Pozo refused to answer certain deposition questions, asserting attorney–client privilege and contending Roadhouse had not waived the privilege broadly.
- The trial court entered an order requiring Pozo to answer questions that he claimed would disclose privileged information.
- Pozo sought certiorari review of the nonfinal discovery order in the District Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether a client’s lawsuit against its former attorney for malpractice and related misconduct waives the attorney–client privilege, and if so, the scope of that waiver.
2. Whether an order compelling disclosure of allegedly privileged attorney–client communications causes irreparable harm warranting certiorari relief.

## Decision

- The appellate court granted the petition for writ of certiorari and quashed the discovery order.
- The court held that a discovery order compelling disclosure of attorney–client privileged information constitutes irreparable harm reviewable by certiorari.
- The court held that Roadhouse’s malpractice suit created only a limited waiver of attorney–client privilege, confined to communications necessary for Pozo to defend against the allegations.
- The trial court’s order was overbroad because it compelled privileged disclosures without adequate limitation to matters necessary to the defense.

## Legal Principles

- Certiorari review is available for nonfinal discovery orders that compel production of materials protected by attorney–client privilege because disclosure cannot be cured on appeal after final judgment.
- When a client sues its attorney for malpractice or related misconduct, the client impliedly waives attorney–client privilege only to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the attorney to defend against the client’s claims.
- The implied waiver is not a blanket waiver; trial courts must confine compelled disclosure to communications genuinely placed in issue by the client’s allegations.

## Conclusion

The court quashed an order compelling an attorney’s testimony about privileged communications, holding that certiorari relief was proper and that a client’s malpractice suit waives attorney–client privilege only as narrowly as needed to allow the attorney to defend.


Pozo v. Roadhouse Grill, Inc., 790 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)