Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneytrialsummary judgment
attorneytrialsummary judgment

Related Cases

Fassihi v. Sommers, Schwartz, Silver, Schwartz & Tyler, P.C., 107 Mich.App. 509, 309 N.W.2d 645
View Case »
Wilkins v. Safran, 185 N.C.App. 668, 649 S.E.2d 658, 41 A.L.R.6th 573
View Case »
Fassihi v. Sommers, Schwartz, Silver, Schwartz & Tyler, P.C., 107 Mich.App. 509, 309 N.W.2d 645
View Case »
Glenn v. Aiken, 409 Mass. 699, 569 N.E.2d 783, 4 A.L.R.5th 1060
View Case »
Hizey v. Carpenter, 119 Wash.2d 251, 830 P.2d 646, 60 USLW 2765
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Guy Bennett Rubin, P.A. v. Guettler, 73 So.3d 809, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D2186

Facts

Guy Bennett Rubin entered into a contingency fee representation agreement with his clients on August 3, 2007. The agreement included a clause stating that if the clients discharged Rubin before resolution of their claims, they would owe him hourly fees. The clients discharged Rubin on November 16, 2007, and subsequently dismissed their claims. Rubin filed a complaint seeking recovery of attorney fees, but the trial court found the agreement unenforceable due to the discharge clause violating Florida Bar rules.

Guy Bennett Rubin entered into a contingency fee representation agreement with his clients on August 3, 2007. The agreement included a clause stating that if the clients discharged Rubin before resolution of their claims, they would owe him hourly fees.

Issue

Whether the discharge clause in the contingency fee agreement constituted a prohibited penalty, rendering the agreement unenforceable, and whether Rubin was entitled to recover fees under quantum meruit.

Whether the discharge clause in the contingency fee agreement constituted a prohibited penalty, rendering the agreement unenforceable, and whether Rubin was entitled to recover fees under quantum meruit.

Rule

The court applied Rule 4–1.5(a) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, which prohibits attorneys from charging or collecting illegal, prohibited, or clearly excessive fees.

The court applied Rule 4–1.5(a) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, which prohibits attorneys from charging or collecting illegal, prohibited, or clearly excessive fees.

Analysis

The court determined that the discharge clause in the agreement was a penalty that violated Rule 4–1.5, as it penalized clients for exercising their right to discharge their attorney. The court noted that no recovery was realized from the anticipated claims, and thus Rubin could not recover fees based on quantum meruit since the contingency did not occur. The trial court's finding that the agreement was unenforceable as a matter of law was upheld.

The court determined that the discharge clause in the agreement was a penalty that violated Rule 4–1.5, as it penalized clients for exercising their right to discharge their attorney.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the former clients, concluding that the contingency fee agreement was unenforceable due to the violation of Florida Bar rules.

The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the former clients, concluding that the contingency fee agreement was unenforceable due to the violation of Florida Bar rules.

Who won?

The former clients prevailed in the case because the court found the contingency fee agreement unenforceable due to the discharge clause being a prohibited penalty.

The former clients prevailed in the case because the court found the contingency fee agreement unenforceable due to the discharge clause being a prohibited penalty.

You must be