Yanakakis v. Chandris, S.A.

97 F.3d 448, 1997 A.M.C. 1161, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 26464, 1996 WL 543945
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided October 10, 1996·No. No. 91-5542·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal followed a verdict for the plaintiffs in an action for damages, alleging tortious interference with contingent fee contracts for legal representation, filed by Basil Yanakakis, a Massachusetts attorney, and the Florida law firm of Leesfield & Blackburn, P.A. The facts and contentions of the parties are set forth in our previous opinion. Yanakakis v. Chandris, S.A., 9 F.3d 1509 (11th Cir.1993). We certified two questions to the Florida Supreme Court:

(1) WHETHER AN OUT-OF-STATE ATTORNEY, WHO RESIDES IN FLORIDA BUT IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH A FLORIDA LAW FIRM, ENGAGES IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW WHERE THAT ATTORNEY ENTERS INTO A CONTINGENT FEE AGREEMENT IN FLORIDA, THEREBY RENDERING THAT FEE AGREEMENT VOID.
(2) WHETHER A FEE AGREEMENT OF A FLORIDA LAW FIRM BORN OF A FEE AGREEMENT THAT IS VOID AS THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW IS ITSELF VOID.

Id. at 1513-14.

The Florida Supreme Court has now answered both questions in the affirmative. Chandris, S.A. v. Yanakakis, 668 So.2d 180 (Fla.1995). The Florida Supreme Court’s opinion mandates a conclusion that the district court erred in denying the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants-appellants. Accordingly, the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is reversed and judgment is rendered for the defendants-appellants.1

REVERSED and RENDERED.

Footnotes

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

Yanakakis v. Chandris, S.A., 97 F.3d 448, 1997 A.M.C. 1161, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 26464, 1996 WL 543945 (11th Cir. 1996).

97 F.3d 448 (Yanakakis v. Chandris, S.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Yanakakis v. Chandris
97 F.3d 448 (Eleventh Circuit, 1996)