From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murray v. Ford Motor Company

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, City Division
Nov 3, 2008
CASE NO. 5:08-cv-86/RS/EMT (N.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2008)

Opinion

CASE NO. 5:08-cv-86/RS/EMT.

November 3, 2008


ORDER


Before me is Plaintiff's Petition for Order Approving Contract and Division of Attorneys' Fee (Doc. 32).

Plaintiff asks me to approve a contingency fee contract that requires plaintiff to pay his attorneys forty-percent across the board of the total recovery received. The contract also specifies that the two law firms representing Plaintiff will share the attorneys fees 50-50.

Rule 4-1.5(f) of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct applies to contingent fees. After the filing of an answer, as in this case, any contingent fee that exceeds the following standards is presumed, unless rebutted, to be clearly excessive unless the court grants prior approval: 40% of any recovery up to $1 million; plus 30% of any portion of the recovery between $1 million and $2 million; plus 20% of any portion of the recovery exceeding $2 million. Id.

On October 30, 2008, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 33). The parties did not disclose the amount of the settlement. As such, I grant Plaintiff's petition to the extent that the settlement is less than $1 million. For any amount of the settlement over $1 million, counsel must make proper showing to rebut the presumption that any amount over 30% is excessive.

The division of any contingent fee between lawyers not in the same firm is typically a minimum of 75% to the lawyer assuming primary responsibility for the legal services on behalf of the client and a maximum of 25% to the lawyer assuming secondary responsibility for the legal services. Fla. R. Prof. Cond. 4-1.5(f)(4)(D)(i)-(ii). In light of the fact that this case has settled relatively early — some 2 1/2 months before the discovery deadline — I will accept the representation made in the petition that the efforts by both counsel were substantially equal and that the fee should therefore be split 50-50 pursuant to Fla. R. Prof. Cond. 4-1.5(f)(4)(D)(iii).

ORDERED


Summaries of

Murray v. Ford Motor Company

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, City Division
Nov 3, 2008
CASE NO. 5:08-cv-86/RS/EMT (N.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2008)
Case details for

Murray v. Ford Motor Company

Case Details

Full title:ODELL BELL MURRAY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Thomas…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Florida, City Division

Date published: Nov 3, 2008

Citations

CASE NO. 5:08-cv-86/RS/EMT (N.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2008)

Citing Cases

Wright v. Ford Motor Co.

There is little case law on this topic (perhaps because the petitions are being filed under seal), but in one…