Florida Association of Private Investigators Deplores Reports of Unlicensed Activity

believe09 said:

If JH and by association DC/JH were not working legally (meaning they were not licensed properly) is DC still bound by privilege? Does he still have that protection if he was subcontracting (meaning hiring) in a manner that is not permitted by the law??

Click to expand...

I cannot imagine that FL law allows an accused's, such as Casey, rights to be violated by the failure of her trial attorney JBaez to make sure that, before hiring D Casey, his licensure was proper, or that subcontractors working for D Casey also possessed proper licensure, but I could be wrong.
I have to believe that if an attorney reasonably believed (and that's the relevant inquiry - what was JBaez provided via credentials and did he check these credentials out?!?!?!) that a PI maintained proper licensure, then I'd think the attorney work product privilege would still cover that unlicensed PI's work in terms of the criminal indictment against Casey.
If not, the PI's would face potential lawsuits for holding themselves out as licensed PI's (so this is likely why JBaez and others have been mentioning lawsuits as a possibility,) and the attorney who'd hired them could be in hot trouble, too. (Calling malpractice carrier, anyone?!?!?)

Where's Miracles Happen when I need her???

Thursday can't come fast enough! I fear the A's will again be a "no show" for their depositions. It is the latest trend in the KC case.

Chezhire said:

I cannot imagine that FL law allows an accused's, such as Casey, rights to be violated by the failure of her trial attorney JBaez to make sure that, before hiring D Casey, his licensure was proper, or that subcontractors working for D Casey also possessed proper licensure, but I could be wrong.
I have to believe that if an attorney reasonably believed (and that's the relevant inquiry - what was JBaez provided via credentials and did he check these credentials out?!?!?!) that a PI maintained proper licensure, then I'd think the attorney work product privilege would still cover that unlicensed PI's work in terms of the criminal indictment against Casey.
If not, the PI's would face potential lawsuits for holding themselves out as licensed PI's (so this is likely why JBaez and others have been mentioning lawsuits as a possibility,) and the attorney who'd hired them could be in hot trouble, too. (Calling malpractice carrier, anyone?!?!?)

Where's Miracles Happen when I need her???

Click to expand...

She was reading US v Kovel (U.S. v. Koval , 296 F.2d 918) :Banane23: and other fascinating cases (U.S. v. Koval , 296 F.2d 918 . )
Anyway,


I agree Chez.
I think we might not need rules and cases addressing the issue of whether or not the Private Investigator is properly licensed though. (my lazy law Friday:gavel

Applying the "Kovel Rule" (atty.-client privilege protects info held by accountant being used by atty. & client to help prepare the case) and thus extending the privilege beyond more traditionally covered workers or agents of the atty,

"Indeed, the Government does not here dispute that the privilege covers communications to non-lawyer employees with "a menial or ministerial responsibility that involves relating communications to an attorney." We cannot regard the privilege as confined to "menial or ministerial" employees. Thus, we can see no significant difference between a case where the attorney sends a client speaking a foreign language to an interpreter to make a literal translation of the client's story; a second where the attorney, himself having some little knowledge of the foreign tongue, has a more knowledgeable non-lawyer employee in the room to help out; a third where someone to perform that same function has been brought along by the client; and a fourth where the attorney, ignorant of the foreign language, sends the client to a non-lawyer proficient in it, with instructions to interview the client on the attorney's behalf and then render his own summary of the situation, perhaps drawing on his "


The issue becomes whether or not the PI was acting as an agent of the Atty. who was rendering legal advice to a client so as to cloak info & communications with that atty's privilege.

This renders the issue of licensing moot.

I believe if the PI were acting on his own, there is no privilege.
But if PI were assisting Baez to perform legal services, there is always going to be an argument that the PI falls within the scope of privilege, no matter what is going on regarding a license.

I haven't read this thread , so if this is way off base, don't shoot me, folks.rayer: Thanks!

Humble-Opinion :wolf: