Pitkin v. Ryan

409 So. 2d 1221, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19327
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 24, 1982
DocketNo. 81-582
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 409 So. 2d 1221 (Pitkin v. Ryan) 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
Pitkin v. Ryan, 409 So. 2d 1221, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19327 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

HERSEY, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment resulting from the granting of defendant/appellee’s motion for directed verdict at the close of plaintiff/appellants’ presentation of evidence.

We are unable to find support in the record for appellees’ contention and the trial court’s holding that the amount of attorneys’ fees, which was the issue being litigated, had been agreed upon by the parties. That being so, appellees were entitled to a reasonable fee. It has not been determined and we do not consider whether the specific amount involved here would' constitute a reasonable fee.

We reverse and remand with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of attorneys’ fees that would be reasonable for the particular services rendered, taking into consideration the following factors:

1. The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly.
2. The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer.
3. The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services.
4. The amount involved and the results obtained.
5. The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances.
6. The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client.
7. The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services.
8. Whether the fee is fixed or contingent. [Not applicable here since a criminal case is involved].

DR 2 — 106(B), Code of Professional Responsibility.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DELL, J., concurs. BERANEK, J., concurs in conclusion only.

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

Related

Triefler v. BARNETT BANK OF SOUTH FLA.
588 So. 2d 240 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
City of Boca Raton v. Faith Baptist Church
423 So. 2d 1021 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
409 So. 2d 1221, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitkin-v-ryan-fladistctapp-1982.