The Third District Court of Appeal in Florida has ruled that attorney Aislynn Thomas-McDonald does not have to disclose her mental health records in a guardianship case involving her former client. This decision, issued on May 20, 2026, in case number 3D25-2466, underscores the importance of privacy rights in legal proceedings.

The court's ruling is significant for attorneys and their clients across Florida, as it reaffirms the protections afforded by the state's constitutional right to privacy, particularly concerning sensitive medical information. This case highlights how the legal system navigates the balance between transparency in legal fees and the protection of personal health information.

Background

The dispute centers around attorney Aislynn Thomas-McDonald and her former client, Jorge E. Silva, who is also her opponent in this case. Silva initiated guardianship proceedings to determine the capacity of his father, Orlando G. Silva, who was found to be incapacitated. As part of these proceedings, Thomas-McDonald was appointed as Orlando’s counsel.

In January 2023, Thomas-McDonald filed a petition requesting payment for her legal services, amounting to over $79,000. Silva objected to this payment, challenging the legitimacy of the fees and claiming that the fee petition constituted an adversarial matter. This led to a series of depositions and discovery requests, during which Silva's attorney questioned Thomas-McDonald about her mental health treatment.

Specifically, Silva served interrogatories asking for details about Thomas-McDonald's mental health care providers and medications. Thomas-McDonald objected, citing the relevance of the questions and the constitutional right to privacy regarding her medical history. The trial court overruled her objections, prompting Thomas-McDonald to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking to overturn the trial court's order.

The Ruling

The Third District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Thomas-McDonald, stating that the trial court had erred in compelling her to disclose her mental health records. The court emphasized that the requested information was irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the case. The ruling stated, "The answer is a constitutional no" regarding the requirement for an attorney to disclose confidential medical information in the context of fee applications.

The court further explained that Florida's constitutional right to privacy protects medical records, including mental health records. The ruling noted that Thomas-McDonald did not place her mental condition at issue in her fee petition or pleadings, which is a critical factor in determining the relevance of such information. The court stated, "If any of Thomas-McDonald's mental health treatment records are irrelevant to her fee petition or pleadings, she will be irreparably harmed."

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for attorneys and clients involved in guardianship and other legal proceedings in Florida. It reinforces the notion that attorneys have a right to keep their medical and mental health information private, especially when that information does not pertain directly to the case at hand. This decision could set a precedent for future cases where attorneys may face similar challenges regarding the disclosure of personal health information.

Moreover, the court's emphasis on the constitutional right to privacy highlights a broader legal context in which medical records are treated with a high degree of confidentiality. The ruling aligns with previous Florida cases that have upheld the privacy rights of individuals regarding their medical information, thereby strengthening the legal framework protecting such sensitive data.

What's Next

As of now, it remains unclear if Silva will appeal the court's decision. The ruling effectively quashes the trial court's order requiring the disclosure of Thomas-McDonald's mental health records, but further legal action could still be pursued. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court's opinion.