Stabinski & Funt, P.A. v. Baucom

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stabinski & Funt, P.A. v. Baucom

444 So. 2d 1067, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11523

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 24, 1984

DocketNo. 82-1597

StatusPublished

This text of 444 So. 2d 1067 (Stabinski & Funt, P.A. v. Baucom) 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

Stabinski & Funt, P.A. v. Baucom, 444 So. 2d 1067, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11523 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final order under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enforce the contingent fee contract herein, in this action below to enforce an attorney’s charging lien. See Baucom v. Baucom, 397 So.2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), quashed in part on other grounds, 428 So.2d 1383 (Fla.1983), for the prior history of this case.

The contingent fee contract herein was voluntarily agreed to by the client with full knowledge of its provisions and consequences, reasonably compensated counsel for legal services actually performed, and produced no inequitable results. There was no basis for concluding, as the trial court did, that the contract was unconscionable, inequitable or contrary to public policy; the contract should have been enforced by the trial court. See In re Barker’s Estate, 75 So.2d 303 (Fla.1954); Salter v. St. Jean, 170 So.2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The final order under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enforce the contingent fee contract herein, in this action below to enforce an attorney’s charging lien. See Baucom v. Baucom, 397 So.2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), quashed in part on other grounds, 428 So.2d 1383 (Fla.1983), for the prior history of this case.

The contingent fee contract herein was voluntarily agreed to by the client with full knowledge of its provisions and consequences, reasonably compensated counsel for legal services actually performed, and produced no inequitable results. There was no basis for concluding, as the trial court did, that the contract was unconscionable, inequitable or contrary to public policy; the contract should have been enforced by the trial court. See In re Barker’s Estate, 75 So.2d 303 (Fla.1954); Salter v. St. Jean, 170 So.2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 So. 2d 1067, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stabinski-funt-pa-v-baucom-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack