In re Hibernia Corporation et al.; Eady, Paula; St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. C, No. 2000-13428; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-C-1850.

Writ granted.

would deny the writ application for the following reasons:

It is clear that pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, §§ 281 and 29,2 the ODC *23|2has the power to request the financial records of a lawyer. However, in this case, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) served Hibernia National Bank with a subpoena duces tecum, requesting records from Mr. Estiverne’s client account. The account number listed on the subpoena was incorrect, so Hibernia’s employee, Brion Workman, telephoned the ODC. Following a conversation with Eric Barefield, the deputy disciplinary counsel listed on the subpoena, Mr. Workman forwarded to the ODC copies of statements from Mr. Estiverne’s client account, as well as statements from Mr. Estiverne’s and his wife’s personal account.

The dissenting court of appeal opinion states, in pertinent part:

In the case at bar, plaintiff/respondent, Nicholas Estiverne, was aware of the subpoena issued by disciplinary counsel to Hibernia Bank.... The plaintiff/respondent, if he did not want the records produced, was obligated to attempt to quash of [sic] the subpoena. Mr. Esti-verne failed to try to quash the subpoena.

Whether Mr. Estiverne was “aware of the subpoena issued” by the ODC is of no moment, as the request for records from the personal account was not contained in the subpoena. The failure to give Mr. Estiverne notice that the ODC was requesting financial records 2’egarding his and his wife’s personal account served to deprive him of the right to attempt to quash the subpoena.

For the foregoing reasons, I would deny the bank’s writ application, and allow the trial court’s decision to stand.