# Lightbody v. Rust

> Ohio Court of Appeals · May 9, 2000 · 137 Ohio App. 3d 658

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3752561

## Case

- **Full name:** LIGHTBODY, Appellant, v. RUST Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** May 9, 2000
- **Citations:** 137 Ohio App. 3d 658; 739 N.E.2d 840
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Rocco
- **Judges:** Kilbane, Dyke, Rocco
- **Cited by:** 36 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3752561

## Opinion text

Rocco, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the second assignment of error. I also agree with the underlying purpose of the majority opinion on the first assignment of error: to protect the confidentiality of privileged, attorney-client communications. However, that confidentiality is not breached by disclosure among the client’s co-counsel. I believe that one attorney can discover communications among the client and other attorneys on the same matter, provided that adequate protective orders are entered to prevent further disclosure to others. Therefore, I would affirm the trial court’s order to allow discovery and remand with instructions to enter an appropriate protective order.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3752561. Public record. Not legal advice.