Calley v. Woodruff

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Calley v. Woodruff

661 So. 2d 20, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10133, 1994 WL 576189

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 21, 1994

DocketNo. 93-01438

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 661 So. 2d 20 (Calley v. Woodruff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Calley v. Woodruff, 661 So. 2d 20, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10133, 1994 WL 576189 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Judge.

Mr. and Mrs. Calley appeal an order awarding $10,000 as an attorney’s fee to their prior attorney, Thomas M. Woodruff, P.A. The trial court awarded the fee based on a charging lien filed by attorney Woodruff when he withdrew from representing the Calleys. The lien was based on legal services provided by Woodruff to the Calleys in a personal injury action.

Subsequent to the trial court’s order, the Florida Supreme Court issued Faro v. Romani, 641 So.2d 69 (Fla.1994). In Faro, the court held “that when an attorney withdraws from representation upon his own volition, and the contingency has not occurred, the attorney forfeits all rights to compensation.” 641 So.2d at 71. The court went on to state that if the client’s conduct makes it necessary for the attorney to withdraw from further representation of the client, the attorney might be entitled to a fee.

Because the trial court did not have the benefit of Faro when it ruled, the record does not contain the evidentiary finding necessary to support the fee award. Therefore, we reverse the order awarding attorney’s fees to Woodruff and remand with instructions to the trial court to conduct further proceedings in accordance with Faro.

FRANK, C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BLUE, Judge.

Mr. and Mrs. Calley appeal an order awarding $10,000 as an attorney’s fee to their prior attorney, Thomas M. Woodruff, P.A. The trial court awarded the fee based on a charging lien filed by attorney Woodruff when he withdrew from representing the Calleys. The lien was based on legal services provided by Woodruff to the Calleys in a personal injury action.

Subsequent to the trial court’s order, the Florida Supreme Court issued Faro v. Romani, 641 So.2d 69 (Fla.1994). In Faro, the court held “that when an attorney withdraws from representation upon his own volition, and the contingency has not occurred, the attorney forfeits all rights to compensation.” 641 So.2d at 71. The court went on to state that if the client’s conduct makes it necessary for the attorney to withdraw from further representation of the client, the attorney might be entitled to a fee.

Because the trial court did not have the benefit of Faro when it ruled, the record does not contain the evidentiary finding necessary to support the fee award. Therefore, we reverse the order awarding attorney’s fees to Woodruff and remand with instructions to the trial court to conduct further proceedings in accordance with Faro.

FRANK, C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

661 So. 2d 20, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10133, 1994 WL 576189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calley-v-woodruff-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack