CK PRIVE GROUP 1800, LLC
v.
DIAZ, REUS & TARG, LLP
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's violation of professional conduct rules does not create a private cause of action, and an attorney representing a corporation owes no duty to individual shareholders absent privity or a special agreement.
[1] A violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct does not create a private cause of action against an attorney.
[2] An attorney who represents a corporation owes no separate duty of diligence and care to an individual shareholder of that corporation absent privity, special circumstance…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“No authority supports a cause of action for charging an excessive legal fee.”
Court citing Dadic v. Schneider on excessive fee claims
CK Prive Group 1800, LLC sued its former attorney Diaz, Reus & Targ, LLP, allegedly for excessive legal fees and other alleged violations of professio…
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'S Duty To Client cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Dadic v. Schneider, 722 So. 2d 921, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (recognizing that “[n]o authority supports a cause of action” for charging an excessive legal fee); Pressley v. Farley, 579 So. 2d 160, 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (stating that a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct governing a lawyer’s responsibilities neither creates a legal duty on the part of the lawyer nor gives rise to a cause of action); Salit
v. Ruden McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., 742 So. 2d 381, 389
(Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“An attorney who represents a corporation is ‘not in privity with and therefore owes no separate duty of diligence and care to an individual shareholder absent special circumstances or an agreement to also represent the shareholder individually.’” (quoting Brennan v. Ruffner, 640 So. 2d 143, 146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994))).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Salit v. Ruden, 742 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Robert J. Brennan, M.D. v. Ruffner, 640 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Sime Michael Dadic and Margaret Z. Dadic v. Schneider, 722 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Sears v. Rosella Pittman, 579 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)