SMITH & BURNETTI, P.A., APPELLANT,
v.
KIM FAULK, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY OF JOHN MARTIN, 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.
A law firm may recover a quantum meruit fee for representation terminated due to client conduct creating an ethical conflict, even absent a fee agreement, when the client's actions made continued representation legally impossible or would violate ethical rules.
A law firm that terminates representation due to serious client conduct creating an ethical conflict under Rule 4-1.7(b) may recover a quantum meruit fee without a lodestar following an evidentiary hearing.
[1] An attorney who terminates representation due to client conduct creating an ethical conflict under Rule 4-1.7(b) may recover compensation on a quantum meruit basis withou…
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 intelligence“if the client's conduct makes the attorney's continued performance of the contract either legally impossible or would cause the attorney to violate an ethical rule of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, that attorney may be entitled to a fee”
Supreme Court's statement in Faro v. Romani establishing the standard for fee recovery when ethical conflicts necessitate termination
Smith & Burnetti represented John Martin in an action against Laidlaw Tree Service, Inc., but serious conflict arose between the law firm and Martin n…
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 Quantum Meruit Recovery cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
Smith & Burnetti, P.A., a law firm, has appealed from an order denying it a charging lien and an award of attorneys’ fees stemming from the representation of John Martin in his action against Laidlaw Tree Service, Inc. Based upon the record disclosing serious conflict between the law firm and Martin, we are persuaded that the law firm had no ethical choice but to terminate its relationship with Martin. See R. Regulating Fla.Bar 4 — 1.7(b).1 Thus, consistent with Faro v. Romani 641 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1994), we reverse and remand this matter for a determination of the amount of fee the law firm is entitled to receive. The supreme court stated in Faro “that if the client’s conduct makes the attorney’s continued performance of the contract either legally impossible or would cause the attorney to violate an ethical rule of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, that attorney may be entitled to a fee.... ” Faro, 641 So. 2d at 71. The fee shall be based upon a quantum meruit following an evidentiary hearing but without a lodestar. See Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. v. Poletz, 652 So. 2d 366 (Fla.1995).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur. . Rule 4-1.7(b) provides: “A lawyer shall not represent a client if the lawyer’s exercise of independent professional judgment in the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or to a third person or by the lawyer’s own interest. ...”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carbonic Consultants, Inc. v. Herzfeld & Rubin, Inc., 699 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…justifiable cause has been found where conduct on the part of the client results in a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, or demands the attorney’s performance of an illegal or unprofessional act. See e.g. Smith & Burnetti, P.A. v. Faulk, 677 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Fishman v. Conway, 57 So. 2d 605 (La.App.1952); Phelps Steel Inc. v. Von Deck, 24 Mass.App.Ct. 592, 511 N.E. 2d 42 (1987); Staples v. Mcknight, 763 S.W. 2d 914 (Tex.Ct.App.1988); Matheny v. Farley, 66 S.E.1960 (W.Va.1910). Centra…
-
Bloomgarden v. Mandel, 154 So. 3d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ultimately the amount of the HHA settlement proceeds to which Lanza is entitled. The trial court is still required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of any fee to which Lanza may be entitled. Smith & Burnetti, P.A. v. Faulk, 677 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Any such fee would be based on quantum. meruit principles without regard to a lodestar,taking'into account the amount of fees paid to the Bloomgardens’ current counsel. In no instance should the Bloom-gardens be responsible for f…
Authorities Cited
- Searcy v. Paige N. Poletz, 652 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1995)
- Faro v. Robert V. Romani and Farish, 641 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1994)