BAILEY HUNT JONES & BUSTO, P.A., A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROLAND LANGEN, P.A., 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 affirmed the trial court's enforcement of a 50%-50% fee-sharing agreement between two law firms on a contingency fee basis, holding that the fee was contingent and that one firm's associate worked substantially on the underlying class action.
A contingency fee earned in a class action settlement must be shared 50%-50% between two law firms pursuant to their fee-sharing agreement when one firm's associate substantially assisted in the underlying litigation.
[1] A contingency fee earned in a class action settlement is subject to a fee-sharing agreement between two law firms where one firm's associate substantially assisted in the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo law firms had a fee-sharing agreement requiring them to split contingency fees equally. Bailey Hunt Jones & Busto and Roland Langen P.A. represent…
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 Professional Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Because (a) the attorney’s fee, which was previously awarded by the trial court to the two law firms representing the plaintiffs in the underlying class action amounting to 25% of the $9,200,000 settlement obtained, was contingent upon the plaintiffs prevailing in the action and was therefore a “contingency fee,” within the meaning of the fee-sharing agreement between the two law firms, and (b) there was substantial, competent evidence adduced below that Hilary Langen, as required by the above fee-sharing agreement, worked on the underlying class action as an associate with the Bailey Hunt law firm, assisting in research, drafting pleadings and related work, the trial court did not err in enforcing the fee agreement between the two law firms which required that the two firms “share any contingency fees on a 50%-50% basis.” We have not overlooked Bailey Hunt’s extensive arguments to the contrary, but are not persuaded thereby. Malver v. Sheffield Indus., Inc., 502 So. 2d 75, 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Gamble v. Mills, 483 So. 2d 826, 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Waters v. City of Chicago, 95 Ill.App.3d 919, 51 Ill.Dec. 185, 190, 420 N.E. 2d 599, 604 (1981); Association of Unit Owners of Deer Lodge Condominium, Inc. v. Big Sky of Mont., Inc., 242 Mont. 358, 790 P. 2d 967 (1990).
Moreover, no reversible error is presented by the remaining evidence point. The error, if any, in admitting Mr. Scott’s expert opinion was entirely harmless.
The non-final order appealed from is therefore, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kuhnlein v. Dep't OF Revenue, 662 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1995)…than from the losing party. Florida courts have routinely awarded attorneys’ fees in common-fund eases on a percentage basis. Tenney v. City of Miami Beach, 152 Fla. 126, 11 So. 2d 188 (1942); Bailey Hunt Jones & Busto, P.A. v. Roland Langen, P.A., 632 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); City of Miami v. Florida Retail Federation, 423 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); City of Miami Beach v. Jacobs, 341 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 945 (Fla.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 939, 98 S.Ct. 430, 54 L.…
Authorities Cited
- Berryer v. HERTZ, 502 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Emmette T. Gamble v. Thomas J. Mills & the Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach Cnty., 483 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)