Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying its motion for protective oi'der from a third-party subpoena duces tecum for deposition. In its filings below, Appellant asserted that the information sought by Appellee (pertaining to Appellant’s former client) was communicated during the attorney-client relationship and with the expectation that the information would remain confidential. There is no record evidence disputing that the client communicated this information to Appellant in confidence, during and as a result of the attorney-client relationship, and with the expectation that this communication was and would remain confidential and not be disclosed to anyone.

Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in denying the motion for protective order, as the confidential communication by the client to his attorney was privileged *113 and not subject to disclosure. See § 90.502(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2015) 1 R.L.R. v. State, 116 So.3d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Reversed and remanded.