BEVERLY ANN SCHWANEBECK, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ARGIMIRO ERIC CALZADO, ET AL., APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
The attorney appellee, Glassford, who had been retained under a contingency fee contract, effected a $50,000 settlement of his clients’ personal injury action only after he had been discharged and replaced by another lawyer. The trial judge was therefore in error in awarding him a $10,000 fee based upon the occurrence of the contingency.1 Instead, pursuant to Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1982), Glassford was entitled only to a quantum meruit recovery for the services he rendered prior to discharge. The undisputed evidence below was that that fee amounted to $1,150. Upon remand the fee shall be reduced to that amount.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
. In effect, the $20,000 fee, which was 40% of the recovery, was split between Glassford and his successor.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trend Coin Co. v. Fuller, Feingold & Mallah, P.A., 538 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…erg rule has been applied strictly. Even when the contingency has almost occurred at the time of the attorney’s discharge, the fee awarded the attorney is limited to the capped quantum meruit amount provided in Rosenberg. See Schwanebeck v. Calzado, 524 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (attorney who effected settlement for client after being discharged and replaced entitled only to quantum me-ruit recovery for services rendered prior to discharge); Barton v. McGovern, 504 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (attorney…
-
KAY v. Home Depot, Inc., 623 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…stances, the fact that an attorney does not represent a client at the time of judgment or settlement does not necessarily preclude a recovery of attorney’s fees, although that recovery is limited to quantum meruit. Rosenberg; Schwanebeck v. Calzado, 524 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Florida, however, does distinguish between those situations where a client unjustifiably discharges an attorney and where an attorney unjustifiably terminates bis relationship with a client. The instant case is controlled by two…
-
Esmat Zaklama, M.D. v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., Gardana & De La Puente, P.A., 906 F.2d 650 (11th Cir. 1990)…rney’s discharge, the “Rosenberg rule” has been applied strictly to limit the attorney’s awarded fee to quantum meruit. Trend Coin Co. v. Fuller, Feingold & Mallah, P.A., 538 So. 2d 919, 921 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989); see, e.g., Schwanebeck v. Calzado, 524 So. 2d 478 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988) (per curiam); Barton v. McGovern, 504 So. 2d 457 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987); Blanton v. Blanton, 413 So. 2d 453 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982). In contrast, the occurrence of the contingency prior to discharge of the attorney entitles tha…
Authorities Cited
- Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1982)