CHARLES NICKERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
INGEBORG ANTONIA NICKERSON, APPELLEE
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 the trial court abused its discretion by awarding attorney's fees based on 'unit billing' and inadequately documented hours.
[1] An award of attorney's fees may be reversed where the billing practices are unreasonably based on unit billing without regard to actual time spent on legal work.
[2] Attorneys seeking fees must maintain accurate and current records of work done and time spent on a case, especially when a third party may pay the fee.
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 intelligenceIn a divorce action, the husband appealed an award of attorney's fees to the wife, arguing the hours billed and the 'unit billing' method were imprope…
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 Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Charles Nickerson [husband] appeals from an adverse final judgment requiring him to pay one-half of his wife’s attorney’s fees in a divorce action. The wife cross-appeals from this same judgment. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Husband argues that the trial court erred in finding that the wife’s attorney had expended fifty (50) hours on the parties’ divorce. He further claims that the award of fees for services that were “unit billed” by wife’s counsel amounted to an abuse of discretion.1 We agree.
This court has disapproved of “the practice of unreasonable ‘unit billing’ without regard for the actual time spent on true legal work.” Browne v. Costales, 579 So. 2d 161, 162 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 593 So. 2d 1051 (Fla.1991). The billing system used by wife’s counsel in the present case is substantially similar to that disapproved of in Browne.
In addition, the wife’s attorney only had time records for 32.7 hours, yet his bill ultimately charged for nearly sixty (60) hours of work.
Florida courts have emphasized the importance of keeping accurate and current records of work done and time spent on a case, particularly when someone other than the client may pay the fee. (Citation omitted.) ... Inadequate documentation may result in a reduction in the number of hours claimed, as will a claim for hours that the court finds to be excessive or unnecessary.
Florida Patients Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1150 (Fla.1985).
Because we find that only 32.7 hours of work were adequately documented in this case, we reverse that part of the final judgment and remand for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Trope v. Trope, 238 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).
We find no merit in any other issue on appeal or cross-appeal.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
. "Unit billing is a practice where the attorney bills a predetermined number of minutes for a given task.” Browne v. Costales, 579 So. 2d 161, 162 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 593 So. 2d 1051 (Fla.1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fleming v. Al Qualls, 667 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Additionally, the fee invoices submitted by one of the firms fail to disclose time expended, if any. Failure to document work performed adequately may result in a reduction of the fee award. Rowe; Nickerson v. Nickerson, 608 So. 2d 835, 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 621 So. 2d 432 (Fla.1993). Accordingly, we reduce the attorney fee award by $5668.95 and affirm the final judgment in all other respects. WOLF, LAWRENCE and BENTON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Browne v. Miryam Costales, 579 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Trope v. Trope, 238 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)