Case Title: In Re: Amendments to Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 4-1.5 – Fees and Costs for Legal Services

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC16-104

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2016-10-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC16-104 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  AMENDMENTS TO RULE REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR 4-
1.5—FEES AND COSTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES. 
 
[October 6, 2016] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
This matter is before the Court on the petition of The Florida Bar (Bar) 
proposing that the Court amend the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (Bar Rules).  
We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. 
BACKGROUND 
 
Previously, in In re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 
(Biannual Report), 101 So. 3d 807 (Fla. 2012), the Bar proposed an amendment to 
Bar Rule 4-1.5 (Fees and Costs for Legal Services) in order to address subrogation 
and lien resolution services in personal injury and wrongful death cases involving a 
contingent fee.  The amendments proposed in that case would have provided: (1) 
that a lawyer handling a personal injury or wrongful death case charging a 
contingent fee must include in the fee contract information about the scope of the 
 
 
- 2 - 
lawyer’s representation relating to subrogation and lien resolution services; (2) that 
the lawyer shall not charge any additional fee to the client for providing 
subrogation and lien resolution services if the total fee for the primary personal 
injury matter together with the lien resolution matter would exceed the contingent 
fee schedule; (3) that extraordinary services for subrogation and lien resolution 
may be “handled by others outside the primary lawyer’s firm who will charge 
additional fees or costs” only with the client’s informed consent; (4) that additional 
fees or costs charged by the lawyer providing the extraordinary subrogation and 
lien resolution services must comply with all provisions of the fee rule; and (5) that 
the lawyer providing the extraordinary subrogation and lien resolution services 
may not divide fees with the lawyer handling the primary personal injury or 
wrongful death claim.  We declined to adopt this amendment.  In so doing, we 
clarified “that lawyers representing a client in a personal injury, wrongful death, or 
other such case charging a contingent fee should, as part of the representation, also 
represent the client in resolving medical liens and subrogation claims related to the 
underlying case.”  Id. at 808.   
Subsequently, in In re Amendments to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-
1.5—Fees and Costs for Legal Services, 175 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 2015) (Case No. 
SC14-2112), among other proposed amendments, the Bar again proposed 
amendments to rule 4-1.5 to address fees for subrogation and lien resolution.  
 
 
- 3 - 
However, after oral argument in the case, which was held on May 5, 2015, the Bar 
filed a motion for partial stay, seeking a stay of the Court’s consideration of the 
proposal and an opportunity to submit an alternative proposal.  That motion was 
granted. 
The Bar has now filed a new petition with a revised proposal.1  Pursuant to 
Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 1-12.1(g), the Bar gave formal notice of its intent 
to file this proposal.  The notice directed interested parties to file their comments 
directly with the Court.  Seven comments were filed.  The Florida Bar Elder Law 
Section and the law firm of Staunton & Faglie, PL, filed comments in support; the 
remaining comments were in opposition.  The Bar filed a response to the 
comments.  Oral argument was heard on June 8, 2016.  After considering the Bar’s 
petition, the comments, and the issues discussed at oral argument, we decline to 
adopt the proposed amendments.   
 
                                          
 
 
1. The alternative proposal was drafted to address concerns raised by the 
Court during oral argument in case number SC14-2112, including: (1) providing 
definitions of extraordinary versus ordinary lien resolution services; (2) requiring a 
disclosure at the outset of representation if the primary lawyer in the underlying 
personal injury matter will not provide extraordinary lien resolution services; (3) 
defining the fee that may be charged for extraordinary lien resolution services if a 
contingent fee is charged; and (4) requiring court approval of the extraordinary lien 
resolution fee if it, together with the personal injury fee, exceeded the contingent 
fee schedule set forth in rule 4-1.5.    
 
 
- 4 - 
THE FLORIDA BAR’S PROPOSAL 
The amendments proposed by the Bar in this case provide that the “primary 
lawyer” in a personal injury or wrongful death case charging a contingent fee:  (1) 
must provide ordinary lien resolution as part of the lawyer’s representation of the 
client under the fee contract; (2) must disclose to the client at the outset of 
representation whether the matter may involve extraordinary lien and subrogation 
services requiring additional fees; and (3) may not charge additional fees to the 
client for providing any lien and subrogation resolution services if those fees, 
combined with the lawyer’s fee for handling the underlying personal injury matter, 
exceed the contingent fee schedule.  The proposal further provides: (1) that an 
“extraordinary lien and subrogation lawyer” may charge a fee for extraordinary 
lien and subrogation services that, when combined with the fees for the underlying 
personal injury matter, exceeds the contingent fee schedule, but only if the services 
are in the client’s best interests, the client consents in writing, and only with prior 
court approval; (2) fees charged by the extraordinary lien and subrogation lawyer 
must comply with all provisions of the fee rule; (3) the extraordinary lien and 
subrogation lawyer may not divide fees with the primary lawyer handling the 
personal injury or wrongful death claim; and (4) the court reviewing a fee 
agreement for extraordinary lien resolution services may adjust the fee of the 
primary lawyer.  Finally, the proposal defines ordinary versus extraordinary lien 
 
 
- 5 - 
and subrogation services, and within a comment to rule 4-1.5, explains what lien 
resolution services are required as part of the original fee contract and what 
extraordinary services entail. 
 
We commend the Bar for its diligent and conscientious efforts in presenting 
the proposed amendments addressing these matters to the Court.  However, upon 
careful consideration, we decline to adopt the proposed amendments to rule 4-1.5 
at this time.  On balance, we wish to reemphasize that lawyers representing clients 
in personal injury, wrongful death, or other cases where there is a contingent fee 
should, as part of the representation, also represent those clients in resolving 
medical liens and subrogation claims related to the underlying case.  This should 
be done at no additional charge to the client beyond the maximum contingency fee, 
even if the attorney outsources this work to another attorney or non-attorney.  
Although it may be true that, given the increased complexity of modern litigation, 
there will be some cases where the amount of work required to resolve a lien is 
more than initially anticipated, the notion of the percentage fee contract 
contemplates that there will be some cases that are profitable for the lawyer 
handling the claim and others that are unprofitable.  That risk and reward is built 
into the contingency fee contract.  If the circumstances of a particular case are such 
that the fee generated under the contingency fee agreement is expected to be 
insufficient for the work of resolving any outstanding lien, the attorney and client 
 
 
- 6 - 
can seek leave of court pursuant to rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(B)(ii) of the Rules Regulating 
the Florida Bar to obtain an increased fee appropriate for the circumstances of the 
specific case. 
CONCLUSION 
 
Based on the considerations discussed above, we hereby decline to adopt the 
proposed amendments to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.5 (Fees and Costs for 
Legal Services). 
 
It is so ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, and PERRY, 
JJ., concur. 
CANADY, J., dissents.   
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
Original Proceeding – Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 
 
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, William J. Schifino, Jr., President, 
Ramón A. Abadin, Past-President, Michael Jerome Higer, President-elect 
Designate, Jay Cohen, Chair, Special Committee on Lien Resolution, Lori S. 
Holcomb, DEUP Division Director, and Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel, 
The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Joseph H. Saunders of Saunders & Walker, P.A., Pinellas Park, Florida; Theodore 
Babbitt of the Law Offices of Babbitt & Johnson, West Palm Beach, Florida; John 
William Staunton of Staunton & Faglie, PL, Clearwater, Florida; Floyd Benjamin 
Faglie of Staunton & Faglie, PL, Monticello, Florida; Major Best Harding and 
Elizabeth D. Barron of Ausley McMullen, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida; David 
Anthony Hook, Chair, Elder Law Section of The Florida Bar, The Hook Law 
Group, New Port Richey, Florida; Cary Leigh Moss, President, Academy of 
 
 
- 7 - 
Florida Elder Law Attorneys, Sawyer & Sawyer, Orlando, Florida; Daniel Joseph 
Alvarez, Synergy Lien Resolution Services, Tampa, Florida; Sylvius H. von 
Saucken, The Garretson Resolution Group, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina, 
 
 
Responding with Comments