Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. v. Poletz ex rel. Poletz
This text of 646 So. 2d 209 (Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. v. Poletz ex rel. Poletz) 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.
Opinion
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).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
646 So. 2d 209, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1663, 1994 WL 63491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/searcy-denney-scarola-barnhart-shipley-pa-v-poletz-ex-rel-poletz-fladistctapp-1994.