← Case library
3rd DCAApril 24, 2019Petition Granted in Part; Order Quashed and Remanded⭐ Notable

The Shir Law Group, P.A. v. Carnevale

Case No. 19-0351

In a legal malpractice suit against a condominium-law firm, the trial court ordered a forensic examination of the firm's electronically stored information and adopted the plaintiffs' proposed protocol containing over 110 search terms, including 'Condo*'. The Third District granted certiorari in part, quashing the protocol order because such broad terms would sweep in vast amounts of irrelevant material and privileged documents of current and former clients, effectively granting 'carte blanche' to irrelevant discovery, and remanded for a narrowed term list.

Key facts

  • The Shir Law Group, a condominium-law firm, was sued for legal malpractice by Carnevale.
  • The trial court ordered forensic examination of the firm's electronically stored information and adopted the plaintiffs' proposed protocol containing over 110 search terms, including the broad term 'Condo*'.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This is a usable certiorari roadmap for resisting overbroad forensic ESI examinations, especially where the producing party is a law firm or professional whose files contain third-party privileged material. Counsel can… — full analysis with a trial

Best value · free

Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.

  • Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
  • Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
  • Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Start my free 30-day trial → No credit card required
👀 Take a quick tour of the site → 60 seconds · click a real case · no login

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.