Worley v. Phillips
| Decision Date | 14 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--641,71--641 |
| Citation | 264 So.2d 42 |
| Parties | Zadock E. WORLEY, Appellant, v. George W. PHILLIPS and Charles B. Rambo, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John R. Bush, of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellant.
Joseph V. Barrs, of Barrs, Melendi & Williamson, Tampa, for appellees.
Appellees George W. Phillips and Charles B. Rambo sued Zadock E. Worley for an attorney's fee in the amount of $2,000.00 less $500.00 which Worley had paid as a retainer. In Count 1 they claimed damages for the reasonable value of their legal services prior to their wrongful discharge. In Count 2 they alleged, inter alia, that Worley had retained them to handle a corporate dissolution matter and agreed to pay them 20% Of any recovery as a result of the dissolution. They alleged that they filed a complaint and performed certain legal services, including settlement conferences. They further alleged that Worley discharged them wrongfully and without just cause, after a settlement offer had been received and with an indication that a higher settlement offer would very likely be forthcoming. The complaint also alleged that a statement for services was rendered to Worley, and pursuant to Worley acknowledging the same and agreeing to pay it as soon as the dissolution dispute had been finally determined, they forbore any attempt to collect the amount until they received information that the dissolution suit had been resolved.
A jury verdict was rendered in favor of Phillips and Rambo and the lower Court entered a final judgment pursuant to the verdict. Worley's motion for new trial was denied and this appeal ensued.
Worley contends that the complaint is totally lacking in substance to support a cause of action for the reason that the contingency contracted for did not occur during appellees' representation. He further submits that an appellate Court may take notice of such fatal defect and make proper disposition of the cause, even though the sufficiency of such declaration has not been tested below.
We understand Worley's theory of the case to be that the attorneys were not entitled to a fee for their services based upon a contingency fee contract where the contingency upon which the contract was based did not occur in their representation and where they had not filed a charging lien in the court below.
This is not the law in Florida. Osius v. Hastings, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 623, upon which Worley relies, held that the discharged attorney was not entitled to recover a fee Until the contingency, upon which the contract was based, had occurred. In that case the appellate Court quashed the judgment of the lower Court for the attorney in the amount of $2,000.00, with directions to enter an order establishing a lien for the attorney upon any settlement, judgment or recovery to extent of contract rights and subjecting to the future effect of such order the respective parties to the litigation as well as their counsel. The facts in the case sub judice are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Litman v. Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block & England, P.A.
...is entitled to a jury trial. Barranco, Darlson, Daniel & Bluestein, P.A. v. Winner, 386 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Worley v. Phillips, 264 So.2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); Riddle Airlines v. McGahey, 144 So.2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Chaachou v. Chaachou, 122 So.2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). How......
-
Scherer v. Austin Roe Basquill, P.A.
...Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom , 428 So. 2d 1383, 1384 (Fla. 1983) (citing Worley v. Phillips , 264 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) ).2 To avoid restricting a client's freedom to discharge his attorney, a number of jurisdictions in recent years have held t......
-
Matter of Armando Gerstel, Inc.
...legal proceedings to collect the fee and to protect the confidential nature of the attorney-client relationship. See Worley v. Phillips, 264 So.2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). See also Sinclair, Louis, etc. v. Baucom, 428 So.2d 1383 Because the lien is based upon the common law rather than statut......
-
Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom
...secured to him in the judgment or recovery in that particular suit. It serves to protect the rights of the attorney. Worley v. Phillips, 264 So.2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). Charging liens have been recognized in Florida for more than a century. See, e.g., Carter v. Davis, 8 Fla. 183 (1858); Ca......