David B. Mishael, P.A. v. Ferrell, Cardenas, Fertel, Rodriguez & Mishael, P.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

David B. Mishael, P.A. v. Ferrell, Cardenas, Fertel, Rodriguez & Mishael, P.A.

606 So. 2d 651, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9867, 1992 WL 222005

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 15, 1992

DocketNo. 92-452

StatusPublished

This text of 606 So. 2d 651 (David B. Mishael, P.A. v. Ferrell, Cardenas, Fertel, Rodriguez & Mishael, P.A.) 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

David B. Mishael, P.A. v. Ferrell, Cardenas, Fertel, Rodriguez & Mishael, P.A., 606 So. 2d 651, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9867, 1992 WL 222005 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from a fee dispute between attorneys. As phrased by the appellant the issue is whether the trial court erred in applying a multiplier to enhance the reasonable quantum meruit fees due to a law firm which was discharged prior to settlement of a medical malpractice action. We answered the question in Trend Coin Co. v. Fuller, Feingold & Mallah, P.A., 538 So.2d 919, 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), in holding that an attorney representing a client under a contingency fee contract, who is discharged without cause before the contingency occurs, may recover for services only in quantum meruit limited by the maximum contract fee. For that reason, it was improper to consider a 2.0 risk multiplier in calculating a quantum meruit value of the attorney’s services.

Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from a fee dispute between attorneys. As phrased by the appellant the issue is whether the trial court erred in applying a multiplier to enhance the reasonable quantum meruit fees due to a law firm which was discharged prior to settlement of a medical malpractice action. We answered the question in Trend Coin Co. v. Fuller, Feingold & Mallah, P.A., 538 So.2d 919, 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), in holding that an attorney representing a client under a contingency fee contract, who is discharged without cause before the contingency occurs, may recover for services only in quantum meruit limited by the maximum contract fee. For that reason, it was improper to consider a 2.0 risk multiplier in calculating a quantum meruit value of the attorney’s services.

Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

606 So. 2d 651, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9867, 1992 WL 222005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-b-mishael-pa-v-ferrell-cardenas-fertel-rodriguez-mishael-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack