WILLIAM LASLEY, ESQUIRE, PETITIONER,
v.
PALM BEACH COUNTY, 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.
The court held that denying any fee for attorney's services performed after a partial award, when the attorney was preparing for trial and negotiating a plea, was confiscatory and unreasonable.
[1] A trial court's denial of any fee award for services rendered after a prior interim award, absent contrary evidence, may be deemed confiscatory of an attorney's time, ene…
[2] When a trial court has previously awarded interim fees for services rendered up to a certain date, a subsequent denial of all fees for work performed after that date, wit…
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 intelligenceAn attorney appointed as a public defender sought compensation for services rendered. After an initial partial award, the attorney submitted a final b…
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 Confiscatory Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner/attorney seeks relief from an order by the trial court denying his second motion to compensate him as a specially appointed public defender in a murder prosecution. We grant the petition for writ of certiorari.
The petitioner submitted an interim bill for this complicated case in July of 1991 seeking $11,341.50 for attorney’s fees and costs for services through June 10, 1991. In August of 1991 the trial court awarded petitioner $10,000.00.
Petitioner continued to work on the case and prepare for a second trial. However, in September a negotiated plea was worked out and the case was completed. Petitioner then submitted a final bill for services from July of 1991 through the close of the case in September. The amount of fees and costs totalled $2,049.50. After a hearing, the trial court denied the award.
While the respondent argues that the total fee was not unreasonable considering the entire case, the award of no fee for the work performed between July and September is confiscatory of the attorney’s time, energy and talents. Leon County v. McClure, 541 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Here based upon the July 1991 request for time expended only through June of 1991, the trial court determined that $10,000 was a reasonable fee. By denying the second much smaller fee request entirely, the trial court in effect found that all time subsequently spent was unreasonable. However, there are no contrary affidavits and no one contests the fact that petitioner was both preparing for a new trial and negotiating a plea for his client. Furthermore, the costs which were disallowed were for the issuance of trial subpoenas to witnesses for the trial which was only obviated by the plea agreement entered into shortly before trial.
We therefore grant the petition and direct the trial court on remand to determine a reasonable fee and cost award to petitioner based upon his time expended after the date of the first award of fees.
ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., concur. LETTS, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Royster v. State, 657 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…fendant acquiesced to it. A trial court no longer has the authority to require a defendant to perform community service hours as an alternative to paying the cost of supervision. Price v. State, 620 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Parks v. State, 595 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Bush v. State, 579 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Although the provision is couched in permissive language, the only alternative to an indigent defendant, who is unable to pay the cost, would be to perform community service. Be…
-
Phaneuf v. State, 655 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…CA 1993) (trial court erred in ordering defendant to perform community service in lieu of payment of costs; section 27.3455 authorizing community service in lieu of payment of costs was amended in 1986 to eliminate this alternative); Parks v. State, 595 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (same); Bush v. State, 579 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (same); Sims v. State, 520 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (same); Hansley v. State, 514 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (same); Rowe v. State, 558 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 5th DCA…
-
Antonik v. State, 664 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…1994). We further direct the trial court, on remand, to strike the provision of the probation order allowing appellant to perform community service in lieu of a portion of the court costs, as this alternative is no longer authorized. Parks v. State, 595 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Bush v. State, 579 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). In all other respects, the judgment and sentence of the trial court is affirmed. JOANOS, MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Leon Cnty. v. The Honorable Charles D. McCLURE, 541 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)