SCOTT LEWIS, CAROL LEWIS, AND SCOTT LEWIS GARDENING & TRIMMING, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
NICAL OF PALM BEACH, INC., AND AMY HABIE, 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.
In a long-running breach of contract dispute, the Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed whether paralegal fees for work performed by the clients themselves (Scott and Carol Lewis) could be added to an attorney's fees award, and whether prejudgment interest should apply to contempt-related fee awards. The court affirmed the denial of paralegal fees but reversed regarding prejudgment interest.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of paralegal fees for work performed by the clients themselves, finding insufficient showing that such labor was required by the lawyer or reduced the claimed attorney fees. The court reversed regarding prejudgment interest, holding that prejudgment interest is due on attorney's fees awarded in contempt proceedings, calculated from the date each discrete decision of entitlement to fees is made.
[1] A client cannot be compensated as a paralegal for services rendered to their own attorney in a breach of contract dispute.
[2] The possibility of mischief in deeming a client a paralegal warrants denial of such claims.
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“The inherent possibility for mischief in deeming the client a paralegal of the representing attorney is apparent enough to cast a dense shadow over even the mere theoretical prospect of the argument they make.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for rejecting the claim that clients can bill themselves as paralegals to their own attorneys.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott Lewis and Carol Lewis, through their counsel, sought to recover paralegal fees for work they themselves performed in preparing for hearings and …
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 Contempt Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
In this long running breach of contract dispute with frequent appearances in our court,1 we are asked to add the time value of paralegal work to an award of attorney’s fees and to require prejudgment interest on several fee awards in different contempt proceedings. We are loathe to add to the ocean of words generated by this protracted dispute, so will simply state our results with but a brief comment.
The attorneys for the Scott Lewis side claim the value of paralegal labor in preparing for hearings and related proceedings. The paralegals in question are not regular employees or staff of their able counsel but instead none other than Scott Lewis and Carol Lewis themselves. The trial court denied this request.
We affirm that decision. The inherent possibility for mischief in deeming the client a paralegal of the representing attorney is apparent enough to cast a dense shadow over even the mere theoretical prospect of the argument they make. In this instance we note the utter absence of any showing that the labor of the client was required by the lawyer or had the effect of reducing the fee claimed by the lawyer.
We reverse the trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest on the attorney’s fees awarded.2 On remand, the court shall calculate the amount of prejudgment interest due from the date of each discrete decision of entitlement to fees for a contempt proceeding.3
POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Westco, Inc. v. Scott Lewis' Gardening & Trimming, Inc., 26 So. 3d 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…n in camera review of the Asset Purchase Agreement as part of its determination. Petition granted. STEVENSON and LEVINE, JJ., concur. . See Lewis v. Nical of Palm Beach, Inc., 16 So. 3d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Lewis v. Nical of Palm Beach, Inc., 24 So. 3d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Lewis v. Nical of Palm Beach, Inc., 10 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Nical of Palm Beach, Inc. v. Lewis, 981 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Lewis v. Nical of Palm Beach, Inc., 959 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Nical of Palm…
Authorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Nical OF Palm Beach, Inc. v. Lewis, 815 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Lewis v. Nical OF Palm Beach, Inc., 959 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Nical OF Palm Beach, Inc. v. Lewis, 981 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)