Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. v. Poletz ex rel. Poletz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. v. Poletz ex rel. Poletz

646 So. 2d 209, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1663, 1994 WL 63491

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 4, 1994·No. No. 93-01699·Published

Opinion

PATTERSON, Judge.

In this dispute over how the fee of a lawyer, first retained under a contingent fee contract, then discharged, should be calculated on a quantum meruit basis, we affirm the trial court. See Rood v. McMakin, 538 So.2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Riesgo v. Weinstein, 523 So.2d 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We certify conflict with Stabinski Funt & De Oliveira, P.A. v. Law Offices of Frank H. Alvarez, 490 So.2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 500 So.2d 545 (Fla.1986), and Faro v. Romani 629 So.2d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

FRANK, C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

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

PATTERSON, Judge.

In this dispute over how the fee of a lawyer, first retained under a contingent fee contract, then discharged, should be calculated on a quantum meruit basis, we affirm the trial court. See Rood v. McMakin, 538 So.2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Riesgo v. Weinstein, 523 So.2d 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We certify conflict with Stabinski Funt & De Oliveira, P.A. v. Law Offices of Frank H. Alvarez, 490 So.2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 500 So.2d 545 (Fla.1986), and Faro v. Romani 629 So.2d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

FRANK, C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. v. Poletz ex rel. Poletz, 646 So. 2d 209, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1663, 1994 WL 63491 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

646 So. 2d 209 (Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. v. Poletz ex rel. Poletz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related