other firms. The trial court ordered production as requested. The First District, in quashing that order, held that the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and section 90.502(4)(c) of the Florida Evidence Code, specifically. The court, in Shafnaker, wrote: This exception to attorney-client privilege [section 90.502(4)(e) ] ... excludes otherwise privileged information between the attorney being sued for legal malpractice and the client being sued. The exclusion has been interpreted to be very limited, applying only to the particular transaction which resulted in the malpractice action, and not to any other aspects of the relationship between client and attorney. Procacci v. Seitlin, 497 So.2d 969 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). See also Reed v. State, 640 So.2d 1094 (Fla.1994)(<HOLDING>).... [W]e cannot accept respondents’ and the
holding privilege was waived only as to matters specifically at issue in court action recognizing privilege recognizing federal common law privilege for psychotherapistpatient communications but holding that litigant waived privilege by raising issue as to her psychological state holding issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal holding an issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal