Levin v. Rosenberg
| Citation | 372 So.2d 956 |
| Decision Date | 19 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1617,78-1617 |
| Parties | George G. LEVIN, Appellant, v. Terrence E. ROSENBERG and Gerald Pomerantz, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Weiner & Rubin and Irwin J. Weiner, Miami, for appellant.
Penzell & Diamond, Miami, Proby & Adkins and Lucien C. Proby, Jr., Coral Gables, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL and KEHOE, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
The appellees were employed as counsel for the appellant pursuant to a letter agreement, which reads as follows:
Before the litigation was terminated, the appellees were discharged. The client then settled the matter for a total recovery to him of $500,000.00.
The appellees subsequently sued for fees based on a quantum meruit evaluation of their services. The client defended on the ground that no fees were owed because the attorneys were discharged for cause. The trial court found that there was no justification for the discharge and, therefore, the client was liable for fees. Goodkind v. Wolkowsky, 132 Fla. 63, 180 So. 538 (1938); Osius v. Hastings, 97 So.2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957), vacated on other grounds Hastings v. Osius, 104 So.2d 21 (Fla.1958); Rosenkrantz v. Hall, 161 So.2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). The trial court then (notwithstanding the fact that after the attorneys were discharged the client settled the matter for a total recovery to him of $500,000.00) awarded a total recovery of $55,000.00. We affirm the former and reverse the latter.
The appellees contended that after they were discharged they could ignore the terms of the written agreement, and the trial court was free to award them a fee based on a quantum meruit claim in light of the recovery made by the client, notwithstanding the contract. The trial court agreed with this theory, ignored the written terms of the contract, and awarded the $55,000.00 above referred to.
A client has a right at all times to discharge counsel. Goodkind v. Wolkowsky, supra; Diem v. Diem, 136 Fla. 824, 187 So. 569 (1939); Harvey v. Rowe, 141 Fla. 287, 192 So. 878 (1940); Osius v. Hastings, supra. The ultimate question is whether he will have to compensate the discharged attorney and, if so, the amount of any such compensation. Because the attorneys had been (upon finding of the trial court) discharged without cause, they are entitled to recovery of a fee, leaving only the question of the amount of said fee.
The letter agreement of employment (the validity thereof not being questioned) provided for the attorneys to receive no more than $10,000.00 if the client recovered less than $600,000.00. Under the existing law, where an attorney is discharged without cause when he was employed for a specified purpose and for a definite fee, he is entitled to the fee agreed upon after there has been substantial performance. Goodkind v. Wolkowsky, supra; Rosenkrantz v. Hall, supra. In the alternative, he can seek to recover a fee on the basis of quantum meruit for services rendered up...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Becherer v. Merrill Lynch
... ... By that time the hotel was substantially complete ... Plaintiff class retained Phillip Levin, a management consultant, to determine whether the hotel lost money due to the delay in substantial completion. Levin testified that he (1) reviewed ... ...
-
Di Gennaro v. Rubbermaid, Inc.
...the upper limit of what may be recovered. See e.g., Ballard v. Krause, 248 So.2d 233, 234-35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Levin v. Rosenberg, 372 So.2d 956, 958 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151, 117 So. 853 (1928). In this case, the Plaintiffs have presented evidence that they would h......
-
Rosenberg v. Levin
...opinion. OVERTON, Justice. This is a petition to review a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal, reported as Levin v. Rosenberg, 372 So.2d 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The issue to be decided concerns the proper basis for compensating an attorney discharged without cause by his client a......
-
Reed & Steven v. Hip Health Plan of Florida, Inc.
...to quantum meruit award). Under Florida law, a client has the absolute right to discharge his attorney at any time. Levin v. Rosenberg, 372 So.2d 956, 958 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Moreover, upon discharge, an attorney who has a contingency relationship with his client has no right to collect his......