ARNOLD L. KIRSCHMAN Vs. LISA S. KIRSCHMAN

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION ARNOLD L. KIRSCHMAN * VERSUS NO. 2012-C-0794 * COURT OF APPEAL LISA S. KIRSCHMAN * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS DIRECTED TO CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2006-6464, DIVISION “J” Honorable Paula A. Brown, Judge ****** JUDGE TERRI F. LOVE ****** (Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Max N. Tobias, Jr., Judge Paul A. Bonin) ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING BONIN, J., DISSENTS FROM GRANTING REHEARING Robert C. Lowe David M. Prados LOWE, STEIN, HOFFMAN ALLWEISS & HAUVER, L.L.P. 701 Poydras Street, Suite 3600 New Orleans, Louisiana 70139-7735 COUNSEL FOR LISA S. KIRSCHMAN Theon A. Wilson 2900 Energy Centre 1100 Poydras Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70163 Leonard Levenson Christian Helmke Donna R. Barrios 427 Gravier Street (Third Floor) New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 COUNSEL FOR ARNOLD L. KIRSCHMAN REHEARING GRANTED; WRIT APPLICATION DENIED AUGUST 24, 2012 Respondent’s Application for Rehearing is granted. We reverse our original writ application disposition that granted the relator’s application. Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 508 prohibits the issuance of subpoenas and court orders to lawyers and their representatives where the purpose is to seek privileged information. The article also provides requirements for the issuance of subpoenas and provides a procedural vehicle for contesting any such subpoena. In this case, neither a subpoena nor a court order is at issue. We further find that testimony from Ms. Kirschman is not hearsay and does not serve to circumvent La. C. Evid. art. 508. Although Ms. Kirschman cannot testify about the substance of the letters, under the hearsay exceptions of La. C. Evid. art. 803(3), she can testify regarding her then-existing state of mind and intent preceding the drafting of and the exchange of the letters between her attorney and Mr. Kirschman’s attorney. Additionally, Mr. Kirschman has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the letters into evidence. Accordingly, we deny the relator’s writ application. REHEARING GRANTED; WRIT APPLICATION DENIED 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.