RUTHERFORD, MULHALL & WARGO, P.A., PETITIONER,
v.
ALLEN ANTIDORMI, RESPONDENT

Fla. 4th DCA | 1997-06-25
No. 97-1143
GUNTHER, C.J., and FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
695 So. 2d 1300 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1997) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Retaining Lien Adequate Remedy On Appeal Common Law Common Law Certiorari

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retaining Lien cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

[*1301] PER CURIAM.

The law firm of Rutherford, Mulhall & Wargo, P.A. imposed a retaining lien on its office file for a former client who disputed the fee charged. The firm seeks common law certiorari review of an order that requires it to turn over the file to the client before the fee is paid. Because the firm has no adequate remedy on appeal and would be irreparably harmed if it were to lose its lien, we grant certiorari review.

Absent exceptional circumstances that are not present in this case, it is a departure from the essential requirements of the law for a court to disregard a retaining lien and release a client’s file before the fee dispute has been resolved. Andrew Hall & Assocs. v. Ghanem, 679 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Wintter v. Fabber, 618 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Accordingly, we grant the writ of certiorari and quash the order that releases the file. On remand, if the trial court finds that a fee is due, it should not order the file turned over until after it has made provision for payment or posting of adequate security.

GUNTHER, C.J., and FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Kerrigan v. State, 711 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
    …2d 1383, 1384 (Fla.1983)). An order quashing a charging .lien may present the prospect of irreparable harm because there may be no other way to secure counsels’ claims for fees and costs. See generally Rutherford, Mulhall & Wargo, P.A. v. Antidormi, 695 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (granting certiorari review as to order disregarding law firm’s retaining lien in client’s file). Because we find the prospect of irreparable harm to be present here, we have certiorari jurisdiction. We also find, as we will late…
  • Michael J. Fingar, P.A. v. Braun & MAY Realty, Inc., 807 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
    …So. 2d at 376. Generally, courts have refused to dilute the purpose of the lien by compelling the attorney to deliver the file to the client before the fee is paid. See Andrew Hall, 679 So. 2d at 62; Rutherford, Mulhall & Wargo, P.A. v. Antidormi, 695 So. 2d 1300, 1301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Wintter v. Fabber, 618 So. 2d 375, 376-77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The value of the retaining lien lies “in proportion as denial of access [to files] causes inconvenience to the client.” Wintter, 618 So. 2d at 377 (quoting Pom…
  • Shelowitz, Shelowitz, Terrell & Coffey, P.A. v. Hortense Peters, 931 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
    …a court order to maintain its lien. Andrew Hall & Assocs. v. Ghanem, 679 So. 2d 60, 61-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The order on review is capable of causing irreparable harm to the firm’s retaining lien. Rutherford, Mulhall & Wargo, P.A. v. Antidormi, 695 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Accordingly, the petition is granted and the order is hereby quashed. Petition Granted. POLEN, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw