Aguiar v. Williams ( 2019 )

Aguiar v. Williams, No. 1042-12-18 Cncv (Toor, J., Aug. 21, 2019).
[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the
accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]
STATE OF VERMONT
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Chittenden Unit Docket No. 1042-12-18 Cncv
Aguiar vs. Williams
ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Count 1, Access to Records (1042-12-18 Cncv)
Title: Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion 4)
Filer: David Williams
Attorney: Kurt A. Kuehl
Filed Date: April 30, 2019
Response filed on 07/15/2019 by Stephen Aguiar, Plaintiff
Plaintiff's Opposition;
Response filed on 07/30/2019 by Attorney Kurt A. Kuehl for Defendant David Williams
Defendant's Reply;
This is a conversion claim brought by a client against his former lawyer. Mr. Aguiar
alleges that Attorney Williams has unlawfully refused to turn over the files related to a
2009 federal criminal case. Williams has filed a motion for summary judgment. Aguiar
represents himself. Kurt Kuehl, Esq. represents Williams.
Findings of Fact
The relevant undisputed facts are that Williams previously gave Aguiar either
paper or digital copies of much of his case file, with the exception of materials Williams
obtained from the U.S. Attorney’s Office subject to an agreement not to further distribute
copies. A jail where Aguiar was housed destroyed some of the materials. Williams asserts
that he provided a second copy; Aguiar agrees but denies that the second copy included
everything Williams says it did. In responding to discovery in this case, Williams found
some additional documents that he had misplaced, and sent copies to Aguiar. Williams
has also offered to allow Aguiar (who remains incarcerated) to send someone on his behalf
to come to inspect the many boxes of original files. Aguiar alleges that (1) some of the
materials were on an iPod which he alleges Williams took back, and (2) some
correspondence in Williams’ file was never provided.
Conclusions of Law
A lawyer has an obligation to allow the client to inspect and copy the lawyer’s files
relating to the client.1 Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 46(2) (2000).
Here, Williams has done more than that, by first providing copies of most or all of the
materials, then providing some or all of them a second time, and now offering to allow
someone on Aguiar’s behalf to review everything in his office. The only exception is the
materials that Williams obtained pursuant to an agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office
not to further distribute them. Whether Aguiar liked that restriction or not, Williams is
bound to honor it. Because of the agreement, “substantial grounds exist to refuse” to
produce copies. Restatement, § 46 cmt. c (“A lawyer may deny a client’s request to
retrieve, inspect, or copy documents when compliance would violate the lawyer’s duty to
another.”); Schmidt v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., No. 09-C-0643, 2013 WL 989829, at *3
(E.D. Wis. Mar. 13, 2013) (client not “entitled to copies of documents his attorneys
received on condition that they would not disclose it to others.”).
Aguiar seems to believe that he is entitled to the original files, but cites no authority
for that proposition. To the contrary, generally “a copy will suffice.” Restatement, § 46
cmt. d. While a lawyer must provide a former client with “such originals . . . as the client
1
Some jurisdictions subscribe to a limited client right to the “end product” of the representation, while others subscribe
to the “whole file” approach. Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn L.L.P., 689 N.E.2d 879, 881-82
(N.Y. 1997). The Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct take no position on precisely what papers a client is entitled
to. V.R.P.C. 1.16 (d). Williams apparently assumed that the “whole file” approach applies.
2
or former client reasonably needs”—such as originals of a will or deed—Aguiar alleges no
reasonable need for any originals. Id. § 46(3).
Aguiar also seems to suggest that he is entitled to the iPod which he alleges
Williams took back, because it was purchased with federal funds under the Criminal
Justice Act appointment by which Williams was representing him. He cites no authority
for this argument, and the court is aware of none.
Order
Williams’ motion for summary judgment is granted.
Dated at Burlington this 20th day of August, 2019.
___________________
Helen M. Toor
Superior Court Judge
Notifications:
Plaintiff Stephen Aguiar
Kurt A. Kuehl (ERN 4361), Attorney for Defendant David Williams
vtadsbat
3