An appeals court determined that an expert opinion isn’t needed when a lawyer sues a client for breach of contract, so it reversed a previous ruling that denied a law firm’s claim for unpaid attorney fees.
Justices Vance E. Salter, Edwin A. Scales III, and Fleur J. Lobree ruled on the case in the Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals on April 8. While the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade previously sided with Richard Randal Glass in Law Offices of Granoff & Kessler, P.A.’s lawsuit against him because he didn’t have an expert witness to help his case, the appeals court reversed, stating it wasn’t needed. The law firm sued after Glass allegedly refused to pay $34,345.20 after hiring the plaintiff to represent him.
“The trial court did not cite or apply any opinion of this court,” Judge Salter wrote. “As discussed further below, that is because this court has not previously addressed this specific category of claim and the types of competent, substantial evidence required to prove such a claim.”
While the lower court referenced two decisions from the Second District Court of Appeals in Florida, those cases were a bit different. For example, in Snow v. Harlan Bakeries, Inc. Snow challenged a lower court’s ruling that gave Harlan Bakeries more than $98,000 for court costs after the bakery won the case. Harlan Bakeries didn’t present an expert testimony to justify the attorney’s fees it wanted, and the Second Court of Appeals reversed because there was no expert testimony to explain the attorney’s fee award.
“Corroboration by an independent expert on the stipulated rates and hours incurred is unnecessary if the attorney claiming the fees from his or her former client has testified regarding those matters and the fee contract and invoices are admitted in evidence,” Judge Salter wrote.
Glass’s new counsel indicated no challenge would be made to Granoff & Kessler’s hourly rate of $235 and $375. Glass also paid much of the invoices over the three years he worked with the law firm.