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

contractsettlementattorneyprecedentworkers' compensationsustainedlegislative intentlevy
contractsettlementattorneystatuteappealhearingmotionworkers' compensationlevy

Related Cases

Alexander v. Cahill, 829 A.2d 117
View Case »
McLaughlin v. Amirsaleh, 65 Mass.App.Ct. 873, 844 N.E.2d 1105
View Case »
Dudding v. Norton Frickey & Associates, 11 P.3d 441, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 5710
View Case »
Herrmann v. Summer Plaza Corp., 201 Conn. 263, 513 A.2d 1211
View Case »
In re Marriage of King, 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 113, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3196, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4297
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rosenthal, Levy & Simon, P.A. v. Scott, 17 So.3d 872, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D1875

Facts

Mary Scott hired the law firm Rosenthal, Levy & Simon, P.A. to represent her in a contested workers' compensation claim after she sustained injuries from repetitive work activities. The firm represented her from September 2007 until May 16, 2008, during which time her employer denied her claim. On May 16, 2008, the employer offered a lump-sum settlement of $7,500, but before accepting it, Scott discharged Rosenthal and hired a new attorney, who subsequently settled the case for $10,000. Rosenthal filed a charging lien for the value of their services prior to discharge, which the JCC denied.

Scott allegedly injured her shoulders, wrists, and hands as the cumulative result of repetitive work activities. Her claim for workers' compensation benefits was contested by her employer and its workers' compensation carrier (the E/C). Scott hired the law firm of Rosenthal, Levy & Simon, P.A., (Rosenthal) to represent her. Rosenthal represented Claimant from September 2007 through May 16, 2008, by providing legal services with the aim of securing workers' compensation benefits.

Issue

Did the JCC err in denying Rosenthal's entitlement to a quantum meruit charging lien based on the 2003 statutory reforms?

The JCC held an evidentiary hearing on Rosenthal's motion to enforce the quantum meruit charging lien, and evidence was introduced regarding Rosenthal's services. The JCC denied Rosenthal's entitlement to fees under a quantum meruit theory, concluding that because Rosenthal did not 'secure' any benefits, no fees were due under the statute.

Rule

Under Florida law, an attorney employed under a contingency contract who is discharged without cause before the contingency occurs can recover the value of services rendered prior to discharge, limited by the maximum contract fee.

Under the 'modified quantum meruit' rule adopted by the Florida Supreme Court, an attorney employed under a contingency contract who is discharged without cause before the contingency has occurred can recover only the value of his services rendered prior to discharge, limited by the maximum contract fee.

Analysis

The court analyzed the JCC's conclusion that Rosenthal was not entitled to a fee lien because they did not 'secure' any benefits. It determined that the 2003 statutory changes did not implicitly overrule the precedent set in Dusek, which recognized the right to a quantum meruit fee for services rendered prior to discharge. The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind the 2003 reforms was to limit the amount of fees payable by a claimant for benefits secured, not to eliminate the right to a charging lien for discharged attorneys.

Although the Legislature changed the attorney's fee statute in 2003, the changes affected only the maximum amount of attorney's fee a claimant can be required to pay based on benefits secured. Nothing in the 2003 statute suggests that the Legislature, in limiting the amount of fees a claimant must pay for benefits secured, intended to alter or overrule the Dusek holding relative to a discharged attorney's entitlement to a charging lien.

Conclusion

The court reversed the JCC's order and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine Rosenthal's entitlement to a quantum meruit charging lien and the appropriate amount.

We therefore remand for the JCC to make the appropriate determination as to whether Rosenthal is entitled to a quantum meruit charging lien and the appropriate amount.

Who won?

Rosenthal, Levy & Simon, P.A. prevailed because the court found that they were entitled to a quantum meruit charging lien despite being discharged before securing benefits.

The District Court of Appeal reversed the JCC's decision, holding that the firm was entitled to a quantum meruit charging lien on the settlement proceeds.

You must be