## Facts

- The Suarezes sued Hillcrest for damages in Miami-Dade County circuit court.
- Hillcrest was a Florida corporation whose shareholders, officers, directors, and registered agent lived in Argentina at addresses unknown to the Suarezes; its Miami-Dade registered office had closed, and the corporation was administratively dissolved in 1996.
- After years of litigation, the trial court entered a final judgment for the Suarezes for $442,477 plus $17,335.89 in interest; the judgment remained unpaid.
- Hillcrest was represented in the litigation by Hollander and Bartelstone, P.A., which asserted its representation ended upon entry of final judgment and expiration of the time to appeal.
- Seeking collection information, the Suarezes served Hollander with a post-judgment request for production in aid of execution under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.560.
- Hollander did not produce documents or lodge formal objections, but stated it advised Hillcrest of the request at an address not disclosed to the Suarezes.
- The Suarezes moved to compel compliance; the trial court denied the motion, ruling Hollander lacked authority to act for Hillcrest after the representation ended.
- The Suarezes then orally requested an order compelling Hollander to disclose Hillcrest’s last known address and telephone number, which Hollander admittedly had; the trial court denied that request as well.

## Issues

1. Whether a judgment creditor may compel a judgment debtor’s former litigation counsel to respond to discovery in aid of execution under Rule 1.560 as if counsel still represented the debtor after final judgment and expiration of the appeal period.
2. Whether attorney-client privilege bars compelling former counsel to disclose the judgment debtor’s last known address and telephone number to assist execution of an unpaid judgment.

## Decision

- Certiorari was denied as to the refusal to compel Hollander to respond to the Rule 1.560 request for production on Hillcrest’s behalf.
- Certiorari was granted in part as to the refusal to compel disclosure of Hillcrest’s last known address and telephone number; that portion of the order was quashed and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Absent a continuing agreement, an attorney’s authority to act for a client in the litigation ends upon entry of final judgment and expiration of the time to appeal; former counsel is not an authorized agent to accept service of, or be compelled to answer, post-judgment discovery directed to the client.
- Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications for legal advice, not ordinary facts of client identity; a client’s last known address and telephone number are generally not privileged.
- A court may compel a judgment debtor’s former counsel to disclose the debtor’s last known contact information to aid execution when no special circumstances show the information would reveal privileged communications.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that former litigation counsel could not be forced to act as the judgment debtor’s agent for post-judgment discovery once representation ended, but could be ordered to disclose the debtor’s last known address and phone number because that identifying information is ordinarily outside the attorney-client privilege.


Suarez v. Hillcrest Dev. of S. Fla., Inc., 742 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)