Legal Opinion

Schwanebeck v. Calzado

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 3, 1988No. 87-2851PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

The attorney appellee, Glassford, who had been retained under a contingency fee contract, effected a $50,000 settlement of his clients’ personal injury action only after he had been discharged and replaced by another lawyer. The trial judge was therefore in error in awarding him a $10,000 fee based upon the occurrence of the contingency.1 Instead, pursuant to Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1982), Glassford was entitled only to a quantum meruit recovery for the services he rendered prior to discharge. The undisputed evidence below was that that fee amounted to $1,150. Upon remand the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Rosenberg v. LevinSupreme Court of Florida · 1982

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Trend Coin v. FULLER, FEINGOLDDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989
  2. Zaklama v. Mount Sinai Medical CenterCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1990
  3. Kay v. Home Depot, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993
  4. Zaklama v. Mount Sinai Medical CenterCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API