Smith & Burnetti, P.A. v. Faulk

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith & Burnetti, P.A. v. Faulk

677 So. 2d 404, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7852, 1996 WL 417534

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 26, 1996

DocketNo. 95-02429

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 677 So. 2d 404 (Smith & Burnetti, P.A. v. Faulk) 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

Smith & Burnetti, P.A. v. Faulk, 677 So. 2d 404, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7852, 1996 WL 417534 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Judge.

Smith & Burnetti, P.A., a law firm, has appealed from an order denying it a charging lien and an award of attorneys’ fees stemming from the representation of John Martin in his action against Laidlaw Tree Service, Inc. Based upon the record disclosing serious conflict between the law firm and Martin, we are persuaded that the law firm had no ethical choice but to terminate its relationship with Martin. See R. Regulating Fla.Bar 4 — 1.7(b).¹ Thus, consistent with Faro v. Romani 641 So.2d 69 (Fla.1994), we reverse and remand this matter for a determination of the amount of fee the law firm is entitled to receive. The supreme court stated in Faro “that if the client’s conduct makes the attorney’s continued performance of the contract either legally impossible or would cause the attorney to violate an ethical rule of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, that attorney may be entitled to a fee.... ” Faro, 641 So.2d at 71. The fee shall be based upon a quantum meruit following an evidentiary hearing but without a lodestar. See Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. v. Poletz, 652 So.2d 366 (Fla.1995).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.

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

FRANK, Judge.

Smith & Burnetti, P.A., a law firm, has appealed from an order denying it a charging lien and an award of attorneys’ fees stemming from the representation of John Martin in his action against Laidlaw Tree Service, Inc. Based upon the record disclosing serious conflict between the law firm and Martin, we are persuaded that the law firm had no ethical choice but to terminate its relationship with Martin. See R. Regulating Fla.Bar 4 — 1.7(b).¹ Thus, consistent with Faro v. Romani 641 So.2d 69 (Fla.1994), we reverse and remand this matter for a determination of the amount of fee the law firm is entitled to receive. The supreme court stated in Faro “that if the client’s conduct makes the attorney’s continued performance of the contract either legally impossible or would cause the attorney to violate an ethical rule of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, that attorney may be entitled to a fee.... ” Faro, 641 So.2d at 71. The fee shall be based upon a quantum meruit following an evidentiary hearing but without a lodestar. See Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. v. Poletz, 652 So.2d 366 (Fla.1995).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

677 So. 2d 404, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7852, 1996 WL 417534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-burnetti-pa-v-faulk-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack