is not intended to be disclosed to third persons. See § 90.502(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2017). The “malpractice exception” to the privilege is codified in section 90.502(4)(c), which provides that “[t]here is no lawyer-client privilege ... when ... [a] communication is relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to the client or by the client to the lawyer, arising from the lawyer-client relationship.” 2. USAA’s Petition—Case Number 3D17-U57 At first blush, it may seem that Herssein’s interrogatory seeks only the identity of a USAA lawyer, rather than any confidential communication between USAA and its lawyer. Generally, such identity information is not protected by the attorney-client privilege. See Coffey-Garcia v. S. Miami Hosp., Inc., 194 So.3d 533, 537-38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (<HOLDING>). After all, who attended the mediation
holding that plea in bar may be based only on grounds set forth in statute recognizing that because the lawyerclient privilege set forth in section 90502 protects only communications to and from a lawyer the plaintiff in a malpractice action could be compelled to answer deposition questions regarding the names of the attorneys whom she consulted with in pursuing her claim holding that plaintiff had no jurisdiction in federal court because she failed to allege a state law claim but declining to discuss pleading requirement to set forth charge of discrimination holding that admission of one defendants deposition was proper where she was present at the deposition even though she was represented at the time by the same counsel as her codefendants holding that plaintiff was properly confronted with her answers to questions in a deposition taken in an earlier suit in which she admitted a prior  incident in which she had fallen