DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
RONALD I. STRAUSS, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida appellate court quashed an order requiring Dade County to pay a private attorney $1,500 from public funds for legal services rendered in defending his own fee appeal, holding that public funds cannot be used to pay counsel for services benefiting the attorney rather than the indigent defendant.
Public funds cannot be used to compensate an attorney for legal services rendered in defending his own fee award against the county's challenge.
[1] Public funds appropriated for indigent defense under Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Fla.Stat. § 27.53, F.S.A., is intended to facilitate legal services for the indigent accused, not his solvent counsel.”
Court explaining the statutory purpose and limitation on use of public funds for attorney compensation.
After the Public Defender withdrew, attorney Strauss was appointed to represent defendant Celona with a $10,000 fee. Dade County petitioned for certio…
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 Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
When the Public Defender withdrew, Strauss was appointed to represent Celona. A fee for his services was set at $10,000.00. Dade County filed in this court Case No. 70-1139, a petition for writ of certiorari to review the fee award. This court granted certiorari and quashed that order. Dade County v. Strauss, Case No. 70-1139, 246 So.2d 137, opinion filed March 16, 1971. While that matter was pending here, Strauss moved in the Criminal Court of Record in the matter of State v. Celona, the original criminal proceeding, for a fee in connection with Case No. 70-1139. Judge Stedman, prior to leaving office, ordered Dade County to pay Strauss $1,500.00 “out *242of the fine and forfeiture fund, for legal services rendered in Case No. 70-1139 in the District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District”. This petition for cer-tiorari seeks to review that order.
Fla.Stat. § 27.53, F.S.A., is intended to facilitate legal services for the indigent accused, not his solvent counsel. Strauss’ services in Case No. 70-1139 are on behalf of Strauss, not Celona. There is no authority for paying Strauss from public funds for defending his trial fee against an arguable claim by the county that it should not be paid. ■
Certiorari is granted, and the challenged order is quashed.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Varvel v. Varvel (No. 2), 36 Fla. Supp. 14 (Lake Cty. Cir. Ct. 1971)…o expend public funds. §61.15 concerns the achievement of economic parity between husbands [*19] and wives in proceedings subsequent to divorce. For these and other reasons, the two sections are not comparable and the case of Dade County v. Strauss, 248 So. 2d 241, does not apply to the case at bar. Under the law under which this case is to be decided, the right to attorney’s fees is derivative in nature when representing the wife in a divorce action. Hope v. Lipkin, (3rd D.C.A. 1963), 156 So. 2d 659. The at…
-
Strauss v. Dade Cnty., 257 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 248 So. 2d 241. ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur. ERVIN and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.…
Authorities Cited
- Bogle v. State, 246 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)