LOUIS GLICK, APPELLANT,
v.
W. CHARLES BECKER, C. P. A., 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.
An accountant sued an attorney and his client to recover fees for accounting services performed in litigation. The trial court held the attorney jointly and severally liable with his client. The appellate court reversed, finding no competent substantial evidence that the attorney became personally obligated for the accountant's fees.
There was an absence of competent substantial evidence to support a finding that attorney Glick became personally obligated to pay for the accountant's services performed for the client. The judgment against Glick is reversed.
“We find merit therein, and reverse. On consideration of the record and briefs we conclude that there was an absence of competent substantial evidence to support a finding that the attorney Glick became personally obligated to the plaintiff for payment for the latter's services performed for the defendant Scherman.”
The court's core holding that the trial evidence was insufficient to establish Glick's personal liability for the accountant's fees.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee Becker, an accountant, was employed by attorney Glick in the presence of Glick's client Scherman to perform accounting services and serve as …
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.
Appellee filed an action in the civil court of record of Dade County against the appellant Louis Glick, an attorney, and Harry Scherman to recover a balance claimed to be due for accounting services performed.
The plaintiff alleged that Glick, in the presence of his client Scherman, employed plaintiff to perform such services, to aid in certain litigation then pending in which Scherman was involved, and that Glick assured plaintiff he would be paid out of the proceeds accruing to Scherman from such litigation; that the litigation resulted in a judgment for Scherman in connection with which there was claimed as costs the amount of $1,857.50 for plaintiff’s services as an accountant and expert witness; that *538plaintiff had been paid $1,027.50, leaving a balance of $830 owing.
The defendants’ answer admitted plaintiff performed services, averred he had been paid therefor, and denied any balance due. The answer averred that the court in the earlier case had disallowed the amount claimed for the accountant’s services, and had allowed only $250 therefor; and averred that the plaintiff accountant had been paid $1,207.50.
On trial without a jury, plaintiff was granted judgment against the defendants Harry Scherman and Louis Glick “jointly and severally” for $650 with interest from a stated date, and with costs, to be subsequently taxed.
This appeal was filed by the defendant Glick. We find merit therein, and reverse. On consideration of the record and briefs we conclude that there was an absence of competent substantial evidence to support a finding that the attorney Glick became personally obligated to the plaintiff for payment for the latter’s services performed for the defendant Scherman. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed as to the appellant Louis Glick.