(f) At the rate of 2 percent for all above $3 million and not exceeding $5 million. (g) At the rate of 1.5 percent for all above $5 million and not exceeding $10 million. (h) At the rate of 1 percent for all above $10 million. The chart that follows is a complete guide to attorneys ’ fees available in a Florida probate.
Jul 24, 2017 · If you're thinking about buying property in Florida, or are having difficulty in the buying or selling process, we can help. Our attorneys have handled real estate matters for a variety of clients, from first-time home buyers to purchases grossing multiple millions of dollars. Call our office today at (727) 397-5571 to schedule a consultation ...
Apr 25, 2018 · This article briefly describes this process; the last steps to your award of prevailing party fees and costs. If you have any questions about determining reasonableness of attorney’s fees and costs, please contact Bernhard Law Firm at www.bernhardlawfirm.com, [email protected], 786-871-3349.
Feb 20, 2016 · Posted on Feb 23, 2016. Under FL law, all attorneys are entitled to "reasonable compensation". The FL Probate Code, Sect. 733.6171 states what the presumed reasonable attorney fee is for ordinary services in probate, and is based on a sliding scale percentage of the value of the probate assets and income earned by those assets during probate. The maximum …
Attorneys commonly use retainers to secure payment of their legal fees and costs. The word “retainer,” however, has a variety of different meanings – and those different meanings result in different application of the relevant ethical rules.
At their outset, the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (referenced herein throughout as the “Model Rules” or, individual, the “Rule”) require lawyers to serve their clients with competence (Rule 1.1), diligence (Rule 1.3) and loyalty – requiring them to avoid, or at least disclose, ways in which the attorney’s interests may conflict with those of the client. See, generally, Model Rules 1.6-1.8. The attorney-client relationship is also commercial, with the attorney typically entitled to demand payment from the client for services rendered. That commercial relationship inherently creates the potential for conflict. No matter how much the client may appreciate the attorney’s work, it would always be in the client’s best interests to avoid paying for it. Similarly, as much as the attorney may be motivated by genuine respect and admiration for the client, the attorney could always be paid more.
The very factors that make attorneys’ services valuable – their knowledge of the law and the specialized training that leads their clients to place trust in them – lead to special scrutiny of attorneys’ payment relationships. The attorney-client relationship is a fiduciary relationship and, just as in other fiduciary relationship, the attorney’s dealings with the beneficiary – the client – are subject to special legal scrutiny. As one Illinois court has put it: The law places special obligations upon an attorney by virtue of the relationship between attorney and client. Those obligations are summed up and referred to generally as the fiduciary duty of the attorney. They permeate all phases of the relationship, including the contract for payment.
Under Rule 1.5(a) a lawyer may not “make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee.” By its terms, the rule requires reasonableness to be assessed not only at the time the fee agreement is entered, but also when attorneys bill for services or attempt to collect the fees they are owed by the client. It is therefore possible to violate Rule 1.5 if an attorney seeks to enforce a fee agreement that, while reasonable at the time, was rendered unreasonable by subsequent events. For example, in In re Gerard, 132 Ill.2d 507, 548 N.E.2d 1051 (1989), a lawyer was found to have violated Rule 1.5 after charging a contingency fee based on the value of account assets located for an elderly client. While, at the time the lawyer had been hired, the client had believed accounts were being wrongfully withheld from him, in fact the accounts were not the subject of any adverse claim, but were turned over willingly by the banks holding them once they learned of the client’s whereabouts – requiring little in the way of attorney professional services. More generally, fees are frequently found to be unreasonable when the lawyer does not perform competent work, or neglects a matter, but nevertheless seeks to be paid the full fee for which he or she has contracted. See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209, 224, 46 A.3d 1169, 1178 (2012); Rose v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 425 S.W.3d 889, 891 (Ky. 2014).
Although many While the “joint responsibility” provision may allow a lawyer to accept a “referral fee” even if the lawyer performs no work, such fees come at a cost. As a comment to the rule notes, “joint responsibility ” means financial and ethical responsibility for the representation as if the lawyers were associated in a partnership.” Rule 1.5, Cmt. 7. That means that, if the lawyer accepts the fee, the lawyer may also be jointly responsible