George Quinn v. Darden Restaurants, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA GEORGE QUINN, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO Appellant, FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D16-2145 DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC.,

Appellee.

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 12, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Toby S. Monaco, Judge.

Stephen Biggie, Melbourne, for Appellant.

Anthony J. Hall and Kimberly J. Doud of Littler Mendelson, P.C., Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BILBREY and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR; MAKAR, J., SPECIALLY CONCURS WITH OPINION. MAKAR, J., specially concurring.

At oral argument, counsel seeking to enforce an attorney’s fees lien against

George Quinn said that the basis for fees was an oral contingency fee agreement

between his firm and Quinn. Even if the lien at issue was perfected in a

procedurally correct manner (which appears to be the case), the fact remains

that the oral contingency fee agreement would be of questionable

enforceability. Rule 4-1.5, Fla. R. of Prof. Resp. (2016) (contingency fee

agreements must be in writing); Chandris, S.A. v. Yanakakis, 668 So. 2d 180,

185–86 (Fla. 1995) (holding that contingency fee contract “must comply with

the rule governing contingent fees in order to be enforceable. . . . a contract that

fails to adhere to these requirements is against public policy and is not

enforceable”). As such, I concur in affirmance.