Williamson, et al. v. Edmonds
| Docket Number: | 2003-IA-01099-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-12-2004 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: Affirmed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Legal malpractice - Venue - Section 11-11-3 (1) - Attorney-client privilege - M.R.E. 502 - Joint representation exception - Physician-patient privilege - M.R.E. 503(a)(4) Judge(s) Concurring: Cobb, P.J., Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Dissenting Author : Waller, P.J. Dissent Joined By : Easley and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Dissent Joined By : Waller, P.J., and Randolph, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - LEGAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-10-2003 Appealed from: Kemper County Circuit Court Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts Disposition: The Kemper County Circuit Court denied Williamson's motion to dismiss or transfer to Holmes County, and granted Edmondses' motion to compel. Case Number: 2002-CV-42(R) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Edward A. Williamson, Individually, and Edward A. Williamson, P. A. |
JOHN BENTON CLARK
SIMINE BAZYARI REED
ERNEST G. TAYLOR
SHANDA L. LEWIS |
||
| Appellee: | Lisa Edmonds and Larry Edmonds | GEORGE W. HEALY, IV |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Legal malpractice - Venue - Section 11-11-3 (1) - Attorney-client privilege - M.R.E. 502 - Joint representation exception - Physician-patient privilege - M.R.E. 503(a)(4) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lisa and Larry Edmonds sought a declaratory judgment in the Kemper County Circuit Court against attorney Edward A. Williamson and his law firm, Edward A. Williamson, P.A., alleging Williamson breached his duty of care, contractual obligations, and duty of loyalty to his clients. The Edmondses filed an amended complaint against Williamson demanding a total of $1,000,000 in damages, attorney fees and other relief. Williamson settled the Edmondses' claims along with other named and unnamed plaintiffs with Annette Williams, et al. v. American Home Products Corp., Cause No. 2000-207, pursuant to the Qualified Settlement Fund order entered in the Holmes County Circuit Court. Williamson objected to answering the Edmondses' propounded interrogatories and requests for documents maintaining that they violated attorney-client privilege and the confidentiality agreement contained within the settlement relating to Williamson's representation of other Phen-Fen clients included in the settlement, including the names of all of Williamson's Phen-Fen clients, the total settlement amount, and the amount of all individual settlements. Williamson argued that disclosure would violate the contractual confidentiality of the settlement and the QSF order. Williamson filed a motion to dismiss or transfer the case to Holmes County Circuit Court. The court denied the motion, and the Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Venue Williamson argues that the court erred in not transferring venue from Kemper County. The Edmondses filed their complaint in this action on July 15, 2002. At that time, section 11-11-3 (1) provided that civil actions shall be commenced in the county in which the defendant or any of them may be found or in the county where the cause of action may occur or accrue. A substantial component of the claim must have taken place in the county for venue to exist where the alleged act or omission occurred. A cause of action accrues either where the actual tortious conduct occurs or where the plaintiff suffers actual injuries from the negligence. To support their claim for breach of contract and breach of the duties of loyalty and care, the Edmondses rely upon conversations and correspondence carried out or received in Kemper County, their county of residence. The information sent to Kemper County is central to the Edmondses’ allegations of breach of the duties of loyalty and care by their attorney. The allegations of the complaint as supported through the Edmondses’ depositions satisfactorily establish credible evidence of a factual basis to support their selection of venue in Kemper County. As such, the trial court did not act unjustly or improperly. Most important in establishing where accrual or substantial components of the claim took place is Williamson’s assistant’s visit to Kemper County. The Edmondses, who had walked out on Williamson the day before refusing to sign the release, talked with the assistant during her visit to their home and were ready to sign. Therefore, the visit, conversation, and representations are pivotal to the Edmondses’ new claims, particularly as they pertain to the breach of duty of care and loyalty claims alleged. What the Edmondses were told about the settlement in Kemper County via telephone, mail, and personal contact are all substantial components of their claims. Issue 2: Attorney-client privilege Williamson argues that they cannot disclose the confidential information surrounding the American Home settlement because the settlement pertains to thirty-one other clients. The attorney-client privilege under M.R.E. 502 relates to and covers all information regarding the client received by the attorney in his professional capacity and in the course of his representation of the client. A significant part of the attorney-client privilege is the "common interest" privilege. The comment to Rule 502(b)(3) provides that the privilege extends to statements made in multiple party cases in which different lawyers represent clients who have common interests. In many jurisdictions, joint representation of clients creates an exception to the general rule barring the disclosure of material protected by the attorney-client relationship. When an attorney represents joint clients in obtaining a joint settlement for which no individual negotiations on behalf of any one client were undertaken, the client may have access to the documents which pertain to the case. By virtue of representing some thirty-one clients jointly in litigation, mediation and settlement, the joint client exception to the Mississippi Rules of Evidence is applicable in this case such that Williamson cannot shield himself from a motion to compel discovery based on the attorney-client privilege. The information requested by the Edmondses is highly relevant to their claims of breach of contract and breach of the duties of care and loyalty. The client is entitled to know the amount of the settlement, and the basis for the calculations, distributions and accounting of the proceeds of the settlement with American Home. Williamson also argues that the physician-patient privilege prevents disclosure of the documents. However, M.R.E. 503(a)(4) defines a communication as confidential only where it is not intended to be disclosed to third persons. The comment to this rule suggests the waiver should only apply to the American Home action. The comment is persuasive because the plaintiffs in the American Home settlement used their medical condition as a sword to further their case against the company, they cannot now use the physician-patient privilege as a shield to entirely protect information which weighed heavy in the negotiation and settlement of their case and is highly relevant to the Edmondses’ malpractice action. Williamson also argues that the confidentiality agreement signed by the Edmondses and the QSF order purporting to seal the settlement prohibit disclosure of the information sought. On remand, the trial court shall review all of the documents objected to by Williamson and the other American Home plaintiffs. The court shall conduct an in-camera inspection of all documents requested in discovery and objected to by Williamson to ascertain relevancy and admissibility in the Edmondses’ case at bar. The court shall require of the defense counsel to redact all information specifically identifying the other plaintiffs (i.e. name, address, etc.) in the American Home settlement, medical records of other plaintiffs, documents related to attorney/client issues, and any other information the trial court holds should be redacted. With respect to the persons about whom settlement and medical information has been requested, Williamson shall provide the Edmondses a chart which lists the persons, identified only as #1, #2, #3, etc. For each person, the defendant shall provide: (1) the medical diagnosis, (2) additional information, if any, which affected the amount of settlement, and (3) the amount of settlement. In the event that the Edmondses request verification of the information provided by Williamson, Williamson shall provide medical records, settlement documents and other such documents as are necessary to the trial court, in camera, so that the trial court can verify the accuracy of the information on the chart. The court shall allow a reasonable time for inspection of the redacted documents by the person, or his or her counsel, before the documents are produced to the Edmondses. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
