A Florida appeals court finds that an attorney who withdrew from representing a client in a probate matter cannot sue the client for breach of contract after the client received a large distribution because the statute of limitations has run, but the attorney can recover in quantum meruit for an amount in excess of what he originally charged the client. Clark v. Elrod (Fla. Ct. App., 2nd Dist., No. 2D09-5480, April 1, 2011).
William Clark hired attorney H. Vernon Davids to represent him in a probate proceeding at a rate of $130 per hour. They entered into a fee agreement that provided that if either party severed the agreement, Mr. Clark would be responsible for paying Mr. Davids at an additional hourly rate. In November 2000, Mr. Davids withdrew from representing Mr. Clark due to irreconcilable differences, but never charged him the additional hourly rate. In May 2001 Mr. Davids began to represent Mr. Clark again as local counsel. While Mr. Clark agreed to pay Mr. Davids 10 percent of any estate recoveries, Mr. Davids never signed a fee agreement. Mr. Davids withdrew in January 2002.
In 2005, Mr. Davids discovered Mr. Clark received a large distribution from the original probate action and filed a charging lien. Mr. Davids claimed he was entitled to the additional hourly rate for his first representation of Mr. Clark and 10 percent of the estate distribution for his second representation. The trial court agreed that Mr. Davids was entitled to the additional hourly rate. The court also ruled there was no contract between Mr. Davids and Mr. Clark for the second representation, but Mr. Davids was entitled to recover in quantum meruit at a rate of $300 per hour. Mr. Clark appealed, arguing the statute of limitations had run.
The Florida Court of Appeals reverses in part, holding that the statute of limitations has run on Mr. Davids' breach of contract claim against Mr. Clark for the first representation. According to the court, Mr. Davids' breach of contract claim accrued when he ended the attorney-client relationship in November 2000. The court also rules that there was no valid contract between Mr. Davids and Mr. Clark for the second representation, but there is substantial evidence to award Mr. Davids $300 per hour in quantum meruit fees even though it is $170 more than Mr. Clark originally paid him.
For the full text of this decision in PDF, go to: https://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2011/April/April%2001,%202011/2D09-5480.pdf
(If you do not have the free PDF reader installed on your computer, download it here.)
Did you know that the ElderLawAnswers database now contains summaries of more than 1,800 fully searchable elder law decisions dating back to 1993? To search the database, click here
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
