STEVEN J. KIRSCHNER, P.A., APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD BIRITZ, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
An attorney who voluntarily withdraws from a contingent fee representation before the contingency occurs (recovery) forfeits the right to compensation, even if the withdrawal is motivated by client disputes, unless the client's conduct makes continued representation legally impossible or would violate ethical rules.
An attorney who voluntarily withdraws from contingent fee representation forfeits the right to compensation unless the client's conduct makes continued representation legally impossible or would violate an ethical rule. Voluntary withdrawal is distinguished from discharge without cause by the client, which would entitle the attorney to compensation under the contingent fee agreement.
[1] An attorney who voluntarily withdraws from representation in a contingent fee case prior to the occurrence of the contingency forfeits the right to compensation.
[2] An attorney's right to compensation upon withdrawal is forfeited unless the client's conduct makes continued representation legally impossible or would cause the attorney…
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 intelligence“Florida law reflects that where the withdrawal is upon the attorney's own volition, the attorney forfeits his right to compensation unless the client's conduct makes continued representation either legally impossible or would cause the attorney to violate an ethical rule of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.”
Establishes the foundational rule that voluntary withdrawal forfeits compensation rights absent legal impossibility or ethical violations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAttorney Kirschner represented a plaintiff in a personal injury action under a contingent fee agreement. Kirschner filed a motion to withdraw from rep…
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 Withdrawal cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
The issue on appeal is whether an attorney who represents a plaintiff in a personal injury action pursuant to a contingent fee agreement, and who withdraws from representation prior to the occurrence of the contingency (recovery), retains the right to compensation?
Florida law reflects that where the withdrawal is upon the attorney’s own volition, the attorney forfeits his right to compensation unless the client’s conduct makes continued representation either legally impossible or would cause the attorney to violate an ethical rule of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. See Faro v. Romani, 641 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1994); Kay v. Home Depot, Inc., 623 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 6th DCA 1993). In both Faro and Kay, the attorney was deemed to have lost his right to compensation after withdrawing from representation due to a dispute with the client concerning whether the client should accept a settlement offer. In the instant case, the trial court found, and the record contains competent substantial evidence establishing, that the attorney filed a motion to withdraw due to serious disagreements with the client over the handling of the case. The attorney tired of what he perceived to be a “problem client” and initiated the process of moving to withdraw from representation. Had counsel been discharged by his client without cause, he would have been entitled to compensation under the express terms of the contingent fee agreement. However, when counsel prepared a motion to withdraw after having suggested to his client that he may wish to find other counsel, his withdrawal was voluntary and resulted in the forfeiture of his right to compensation. See Kocha & Jones, P.A., v. Greenwald, 660 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The decision of the trial court denying recovery of attorney’s fees is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Forthuber v. First Liberty Ins. Corp., 229 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…reviously held, when an attorney is employed on a contingency basis, unless he is discharged by the client without cause before the contingency occurs, he forfeits his right to a fee by withdrawing before the contingency occurs. Kirschner v. Biritz, 843 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The only exceptions to this rale are when the attorney's continued representation is “legally impossible” or when the "client’s conduct would cause the attorney to violate the law or an ethical rule of conduct.” DePena v. C…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Faro v. Robert V. Romani and Farish, 641 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1994)
- KAY v. Home Depot, Inc., 623 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Kocha & Jones, P.A. v. Greenwald, 660 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)