HomeMy WebLinkAbout0645 e~~ecially wh~n it is not rea2i2ed t'zat such rePresents gross
income rather than net profit. Furt~lermore, such awards should
always be sharply scrutinized when we consider that the frus-
trated taxpayer is, by~statute, called up~n to make this pay-
ment, not the particular client receiving the benefit.
~
- It would appear that recent appellate decisions in con-
demnation cases are leaning towards an haurly rate without
actually mandating one. This is evidenced by repeated compari-
son of the fee awarded with the number of attorney hours, re-
sulting in reversal for excessiveness. The most recent of
these~ dubbed Oolite "Two" [348 So.2d 902 (Fla. 3DCA 1977)] '
is part of the same Oolite case already referred to,_before the
Third District again for resolution of the same attorneys fees.
The last visit to the Third District of this portion of s
j
Oolite "One" resulted in a fee af $60,000 for b6 hours,beinq '
declared excessive. Accordingly, upon remand the trial judge
halved the fee to $29,000 for the same 66 hours. Reviewing
this fee for a second time, a new panel held that while the fee
i
should not "necessarily" be geared to an hourly rate, $439.00
per hour was still excessive for "the kind of work ir?volved". '
Absent the complete record we cannot say that we would not
agree with the result, but the stated reasons for the fixing of
the fee at $212.12 per hour instead, were not the yardsticks `
we would have used.
A blanket opinion that $212.00 per hour was gracious plenty,
We could ~ot argue with, but Oolite "Two" adopts the theory ;
that the fee should ue sma2ler because so much of the lawyer's .f
time was spent on pre-trial preparation. Thus, for example, the
court reasoned that legal fees for a mere deposition should be
less because it:
...usually is hand2ed by a junior member of a
firm. If a senior partner wishes to do such
work himself, the fact that he does so does not
raise its type level. (P. 944).
i
-4- f
}
a
BOGK~~2 PAGE 6
37