 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nester v. Jernigan8/4/2005
. Nester was acting on information provided by a client. The transcript of the hearing confirms that Nester revealed neither her client's identity nor the communication between them. Rather, she received information from her client which prompted her to file the motion to compel the production of certain records which she believed would aid her client's defense. Nester was doing no more than what lawyers frequently do. They make statements in court, file discovery requests, interview witnesses, file motions, and take other actions based on information received from various sources, including other clients. Nester's attempts to pursue the motion at the bench -- without fanfare -- were reasonable, are commendable, and belie any claim that she had a hidden agenda.
. The information or communication Nester received from her client is privileged. Were we to hold that the attorney-client privilege is waived when an attorney acts on information received from a client, we would effectively destroy the privilege. Much of what an attorney does in investigating and pursuing a claim for a client is based on unsubstantiated information received from the client. Lawyers frequently accuse defendants of fraud, bad faith, dishonesty, recklessness, etc., based upon nothing more than unsupported statements from a client. The statements from the client to the lawyer are privileged and not discoverable. The fact that Jernigan is a lawyer places him in no special place of privilege or immunity from the process.
. We hold that the trial court may not compel Nester to disclose either the identity of, or communication from, her client.
Work Product and The Rules of Professional Conduct
. Nester says that the trial court's order would require her to provide work product, and also would place her in violation of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct. Having determined the attorney-client privilege protects both the communication and the identity of Nester's client, we decline to address these additional arguments.
CONCLUSION
. The trial court's order is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., EASLEY, CARLSON, GRAVES AND RANDOLPH, JJ., CONCUR.
DIAZ, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
Page 1 2 3 4 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|