HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, PETITIONER,
v.
SIMSON UNTERBERGER, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Hillsborough County challenged a circuit court's award of $10,000 in attorney's fees to court-appointed counsel Unterberger for representing a defendant in a capital murder appeal. The appellate court granted the petition for certiorari and remanded, holding that the fee must be recalculated based on the hourly rate ($40/hour) established by the chief judge's administrative order, rather than the expert testimony regarding fair market value.
The court held that attorney's fees for court-appointed counsel must be recalculated based on the hourly rate ($40/hour) established by the chief judge's administrative order, not on expert testimony of fair market value, regardless of case complexity.
[1] A trial court cannot award attorney's fees to a court-appointed attorney in excess of the hourly rate established by the chief judge of the circuit, even in extraordinary…
[2] Section 925.036, Florida Statutes, relating to the award of attorneys' fees for court-appointed counsel, sets a maximum hourly rate that trial courts are bound to follow.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The proper procedure for challenging an order awarding attorney's fees to court appointed counsel is by petition for certiorari, not appeal.”
Establishes the correct procedural mechanism for reviewing attorney's fee awards to appointed counsel.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUnterberger was appointed to represent defendant Hector Fuente on appeal from a first-degree murder conviction. Unterberger rendered 134.3 hours of pr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Court-Appointed Counsel Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
Hillsborough County appeals the circuit court’s order awarding $10,000 in attorney’s fees to Simson Unterberger for his court appointed legal services provided in a criminal case. The proper procedure for challenging an order awarding attorney’s fees to court appointed counsel is by petition for certiorari, not appeal. Schommer v. Bentley, 489 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Therefore, we treat this appeal as a petition for certiorari. We grant the petition.
The trial court appointed Unterberger to represent Hector Fuente on an appeal from a conviction of first degree murder. At the conclusion of his representation, Unterber-ger filed a motion requesting attorney’s fees in excess of the $2,000 amount set by section 925.036(2)(e), Florida Statutes, for representation on appeal of a defendant convicted of a capital crime. As grounds he asserted that the case was unusual and complex.
Unterberger’s motion reflected that he rendered 134.3 hours of professional service to the defendant. At the hearing on the motion, Unterberger presented expert testimony that the fair market value of his service was between $10,000 and $15,000. The trial judge observed that the complex issues involved made the case extraordinary and unusual at both the trial and appellate level. The court awarded Unter-berger a fee of $10,000.
On May 28, 1985, the chief judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit amended Administrative Order No. 79-3 to provide that special public defenders receive compensation at the rate of forty dollars an hour. The order was in effect at the time that Unterberger accepted the appointment to represent the defendant. The fee awarded Unterberger was not based on the rate established in the amended administrative order. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and remand this case to the circuit court with directions to recalculate Unterberger’s fee based upon the hourly rate established by the chief judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. See Hillsborough County v. Marchese, 519 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County v. Lopez, 518 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
RYDER and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hillsborough Cnty. v. Simson Unterberger, 534 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…on for writ of certiorari, quashed the trial court’s order, and remanded with directions to recalculate Unterberger’s fee on the basis of the rate established by the chief judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. Hillsborough County v. Unterberger, 523 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), cert. denied, 529 So. 2d 695 (Fla.1988) [hereinafter Unterberger I]. On remand the trial court set Unterberger’s fee at $5,372. Thereafter, Unterberger applied for additional attorney’s fees for 81.8 subsequently rendered hours…
Authorities Cited
- Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Hillsborough Cnty. v. Lopez, 518 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Hillsborough Cnty. v. Marchese, 519 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Nicholas G. Schommer and James v. Lobozzo, Jr., 489 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)