Opinion ID: 2372858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: deposition of appellant concerning statements made by dr. slater

Text: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order that appellant appear for his deposition, with such deposition being limited to statements made to him by Dr. Slater. While a discovery deposition of an attorney is not expressly prohibited by the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure, our courts have not defined the circumstances in which a party's counsel may be deposed. CR 26.01, 26.02 and 27.01. Foreign jurisdictions, however, have addressed this issue and commented on the limited circumstances in which opposing counsel may be deposed. Shelton v. American Motors, 805 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir.1986). In Shelton , the 8th Circuit stated: [The] practice of deposing opposing counsel detracts from the quality of client representation. Counsel should be free to devote his or her time and efforts to preparing the client's case without the fear of being interrogated by his or her opponent. Id. Shelton further provided that opposing counsel may only be deposed after the party seeking discovery has shown that (1) No other means exist to obtain the information than to depose opposing counsel (citation omitted); (2) the information sought is relevant and not privileged; and (3) the information is crucial to the preparation of the case. Id. Hickman, supra , has also commented on the deposing of opposing counsel and stated, in pertinent part: Under ordinary conditions, forcing an attorney to repeat or write out all that witnesses have told him and to deliver the account to his adversary gives rise to grave dangers of inaccuracy and untrustworthiness. No legitimate purpose is served by such production. The practice forces the attorney to testify as to what he remembers or what he saw fit to write down regarding witnesses' remarks. In our view, the foregoing decisions address this issue appropriately and provide the proper standard. In some rare or extraordinary circumstance, the deposition of counsel for a party might be necessary, but the potential for harm to the administration of justice is too great to permit such a practice routinely. In the instant case, appellee, Dr. Slater, will be available to testify at trial as to what he told appellant if such becomes relevant. The discovery sought here fails in several respects to satisfy the required standard and the Court of Appeals' order directing appellant to submit to a deposition was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the order of the Court of Appeals denying prohibition is reversed and this cause is remanded to the Jefferson Circuit Court with directions to vacate its order of October 3, 1991. All concur.