Faro v. Romani
| Decision Date | 07 July 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 82725,82725 |
| Parties | , 19 Fla. L. Weekly S358 John H. FARO, Petitioner, v. Robert V. ROMANI and Farish, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John Beranek of Aurell, Radey, Hinkle, Thomas & Beranek, Tallahassee, Walter G. Campbell of Krupnick, Campbell, Malone, Roselli, Buser & Slama, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, and Amanda K. Esquibel and Eileen L. Tilghman of Tilghman & Esquibel, P.A., Miami, for petitioner.
S. Emory Rogers of Farish, Farish & Romani, West Palm Beach, for respondents.
C. Rufus Pennington, III of Margol & Pennington, P.A., Jacksonville, amicus curiae for The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.
Daniel S. Pearson of Holland & Knight, Miami, amicus curiae for Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
We review Faro v. Romani, 629 So.2d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), in which the district court certified the following question of great public importance:
WHETHER IN AN ACTION ON A CHARGING LIEN, A TRIER OF FACT MAY CONCLUDE ON DISPUTED EVIDENCE THAT COUNSEL IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED, NOTWITHSTANDING
Id. at 873. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. We answer the certified question with a qualified affirmative, but also find that there was insufficient evidence of justification and good cause to warrant a fee in this case.
John Faro, who suffered from a mental disability after he was injured in an automobile accident, retained attorney Robert Romani to represent him in his claim against Amica Mutual Insurance Company. Faro, himself a lawyer, entered into a contingency fee agreement with Romani and the firm of Farish, Farish, and Romani. The agreement contained the following provision:
Said suit or claim shall not be in any manner settled or compromised without the consent and to the mutual satisfaction of both parties to this agreement. However, if at any time in the opinion of the attorneys a reasonable offer of settlement is made, the client(s) agree(s) to consider the recommendation of the attorneys.
As part of the agreement, Faro also agreed to pay the costs of the litigation and to pay Romani thirty percent of any recovery.
Before the case went to trial, Romani filed a motion to withdraw as counsel based on "irreconcilable differences" that arose between him and Faro. * Over the objection of Faro, the trial court granted the motion to withdraw. With some difficulty, Faro obtained new counsel and settled his claim for $750,000. Subsequently, Romani sought to impose an attorney's charging lien for the fees and costs which accrued from his representation of Faro. The trial court ordered Faro to pay the amount of $180,000 based on "quantum meruit and the contractual agreement of the parties." On appeal, the district court affirmed the trial court's order, and held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in calculating the amount of the award. The district court also held that the trial court was not required to make specific findings in support of the award.
The district court certified the issue to this Court because of the "potential for conflicts between clients and counsel, and the potential for confusion in applying rule 4-1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct regulating The Florida Bar." Id. at 873. Initially, we point out that the nature of the attorney-client relationship requires an analysis that differs from the principles of compensation that are applicable in other contractual relationships. In Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1982), this Court held that a lawyer discharged without cause can recover the reasonable value of his services on the basis of quantum meruit, but such recovery is limited to the maximum fee set out in the contract for legal services. We have not ruled whether an attorney who voluntarily withdraws in a contingent fee case before the happening of the contingency is entitled to a fee.
Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 4-1.16(b) sets forth the following circumstances under which an attorney may withdraw from representation:
(1) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(2) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(3) a client insists upon pursuing an objective that the lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent;
(4) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(5) the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Petition for Distribution of Attorney's Fees Between Stowman Law Firm, P.A.
...Retains Right to Compensation Notwithstanding Voluntary Withdrawal from Case, 53 A.L.R.5th 287, 303–04 (1997) ; see Faro v. Romani, 641 So.2d 69, 71 (Fla.1994) ; Lofton v. Fairmont Specialty Ins. Managers, Inc., 367 S.W.3d 593, 597 (Ky.2012) ; Bell & Marra, pllc v. Sullivan, 300 Mont. 530, ......
-
Meininger v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (In re Stay In My Home, P.A.), Case No.: 8:18-bk-08436-RCT
...that a right to Additional Compensation survives Debtor's breach of the contract to represent a Former Client. Defendants also point to Faro v. Romani to argue that the Trustee has no valid claim for Additional Compensation as a matter of law because Debtor voluntarily withdrew from all of ......
-
Dinter v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...force where the withdrawing attorney failed to earn the contingent fee, having achieved no recovery for the client. See Faro v. Romani, 641 So.2d 69 (Fla.1994); Plaza Shoe Store, Inc. v. Hermel, 636 S.W.2d 53, 59-60 (Mo.1982). Where the client elects to proceed with an appeal with a new att......
-
Carbonic Consultants, Inc. v. Herzfeld & Rubin, Inc.
...retained on a contingent basis who voluntarily withdraws will be held to have forfeited any right to compensation. See Faro v. Romani, 641 So.2d 69 (Fla.1994); Doremus v. Florida Energy Sys. of S. Fla., Inc., 676 So.2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). An exception is made where there is a justifiab......
-
A primer on motions to withdraw and attorney liens.
...of one of the subsections of Rule 4-1.16. This is particularly true if you are working under a contingency contract. In Faro v. Romani, 641 So. 2d 69, 71 (Fla. 1994), the Florida Supreme Court held that when an "attorney withdraws from representation upon his own volition, and the contingen......