Schlax v. Justice Administrative Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schlax v. Justice Administrative Commission

109 So. 3d 895, 2013 WL 1316990, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5395

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 2013

DocketNo. 1D12-5710

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 109 So. 3d 895 (Schlax v. Justice Administrative Commission) 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

Schlax v. Justice Administrative Commission, 109 So. 3d 895, 2013 WL 1316990, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5395 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Julie A. Schlax, seeks review of an order awarding her $17,000 in attorney’s fees for representing an indigent criminal defendant in a capital case, instead of the $23,670 she requested. Petitioner argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in two ways. First, she argues that the trial court erred in limiting her fees without making a finding as to the reasonable number of hours she worked in representing her client. Second, she argues that the trial court impermissibly considered the court’s budget when it limited her fee award. For the reasons explained in Fletcher v. Justice Administrative Commission, (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) 1D12-5709, we grant the petition, quash the fee award, and remand for reconsideration. If the trial court determines that an award greater than the statutory cap is justified, it should make the appropriate findings to support the award.

PETITION GRANTED.

BENTON, C.J., ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Julie A. Schlax, seeks review of an order awarding her $17,000 in attorney’s fees for representing an indigent criminal defendant in a capital case, instead of the $23,670 she requested. Petitioner argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in two ways. First, she argues that the trial court erred in limiting her fees without making a finding as to the reasonable number of hours she worked in representing her client. Second, she argues that the trial court impermissibly considered the court’s budget when it limited her fee award. For the reasons explained in Fletcher v. Justice Administrative Commission, (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) 1D12-5709, we grant the petition, quash the fee award, and remand for reconsideration. If the trial court determines that an award greater than the statutory cap is justified, it should make the appropriate findings to support the award.

PETITION GRANTED.

BENTON, C.J., ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 3d 895, 2013 WL 1316990, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schlax-v-justice-administrative-commission-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack