Spinelli v. Rodes-Roper-Love Ins. Agency, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Spinelli v. Rodes-Roper-Love Ins. Agency, Inc.

613 So. 2d 504, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 14, 1993 WL 2966

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 8, 1993

DocketNo. 92-907

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 613 So. 2d 504 (Spinelli v. Rodes-Roper-Love Ins. Agency, Inc.) 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

Spinelli v. Rodes-Roper-Love Ins. Agency, Inc., 613 So. 2d 504, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 14, 1993 WL 2966 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves an order granting a charging lien to a law firm after the law firm became disqualified to further represent the client when the law firm hired a lawyer who had previously worked on the case on behalf of the opposing party. The trial judge resolved certain disputed evidence as to the fee arrangement in favor of the law firm and approved a charging lien for $17,536.40 resulting from multiplying 307.40 hours by an hourly rate of $110 (being $33,814.00) less credit for $16,277.60 previously paid.

At oral argument before this court the law firm acknowledged that 10.33 hours of the 307.40 hours used in computing the charging lien involved time spend not on the client’s cause but on contesting the law firm’s disqualification. We hold that the law firm, having caused the conflict by hiring a disqualified lawyer, was not entitled to charge its client for contesting the law firm’s resulting disqualification and therefore reduce the compensable hours from 307.40 to 297.07 hours, and, accordingly, reduce the amount of the charging lien from $17,536.40 to $16,400.10. Subject to the outcome of the litigation between the client and the law firm involving fees, which we understand is pending, we affirm the appealed order as modified herein.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

GOSHORN, C.J., and W. SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves an order granting a charging lien to a law firm after the law firm became disqualified to further represent the client when the law firm hired a lawyer who had previously worked on the case on behalf of the opposing party. The trial judge resolved certain disputed evidence as to the fee arrangement in favor of the law firm and approved a charging lien for $17,536.40 resulting from multiplying 307.40 hours by an hourly rate of $110 (being $33,814.00) less credit for $16,277.60 previously paid.

At oral argument before this court the law firm acknowledged that 10.33 hours of the 307.40 hours used in computing the charging lien involved time spend not on the client’s cause but on contesting the law firm’s disqualification. We hold that the law firm, having caused the conflict by hiring a disqualified lawyer, was not entitled to charge its client for contesting the law firm’s resulting disqualification and therefore reduce the compensable hours from 307.40 to 297.07 hours, and, accordingly, reduce the amount of the charging lien from $17,536.40 to $16,400.10. Subject to the outcome of the litigation between the client and the law firm involving fees, which we understand is pending, we affirm the appealed order as modified herein.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

GOSHORN, C.J., and W. SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

613 So. 2d 504, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 14, 1993 WL 2966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spinelli-v-rodes-roper-love-ins-agency-inc-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack