Case Name: Philip H. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.; and Gary, Williams, Parenti & Taylor, P.A., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-11-30
Citations: 651 So. 2d 97
Docket Number: No. 93-0319
Parties: Philip H. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.; and Gary, Williams, Parenti & Taylor, P.A., Appellees.
Judges: HERSEY, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 651
Pages: 97–107

Head Matter:
Philip H. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.; and Gary, Williams, Parenti & Taylor, P.A., Appellees.
No. 93-0319.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Nov. 30, 1994.
Opinion on Denial of Rehearing and Certification March 1, 1995.
Bruce S. Rogow, of Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., and Beverly A. Pohl, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Daniel S. Pearson, Lenore C. Smith, Lucinda A. Hofmann of Holland & Knight, Miami, for appellees.

Opinion:
FARMER, Judge.
A lawyer appeals a judgment in a civil proceeding that he is guilty of contempt of court and that imposed a fine of $1,700,000 for violating an injunction against communication with his client. We reverse.
We begin by emphatically reconfirming the principle that every litigant, and especially a lawyer, must comply with an injunction— even those that the person believes in good faith to be entirely erroneous. This is undoubtedly even more true where the injunction has survived an appeal, as happened in this case. The fact that this injunction appears to lack legal support and may interfere with protected First Amendment interests does not in any way establish that it is void. A pretrial injunction would be void only if the court entering it lacked subject matter jurisdiction or had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the defendant. Neither circumstance is applicable here.
In our opinion, it is the finding of contempt and the fine that must be set aside. The contempt proceeding was held after Judge Kanarek had granted Taylor's motion to substitute his new firm for the Searcy Denney firm. When the issue of contempt was heard, the injunction was no longer effective and thus the purpose of the motion could only have been punitive — enforcement no longer being an issue and coercion having thus been made moot. That means to us that the matter should have been handled as one seeking to punish for indirect criminal contempt of court. Rule 3.840 governs such proceedings, but none of its requirements were followed here. A reversal on that procedural ground is unavoidable.
But even if the correct procedure for indirect criminal contempt of court had been followed, we would still vote to find the fine excessive. The fine imposed is $1,700,000. As we read the statutes, the amount of fines in criminal cases is controlled by section 775.083, Florida Statutes (1993), which authorizes fines ranging from $15,000 for life felonies down to $500 for second degree misdemeanors and noncriminal violations, unless another statute specifically allows an even higher amount. Subsection (f) of section 775.083 authorizes "any higher amount equal to double the pecuniary gain derived from the offense by the offender or double the pecuniary loss suffered by the victim."
Neither of these alternative justifications is available here because there has been no finding as to any gain derived by Taylor or loss suffered by Searcy Denney. In fact, whether there could ever be such a gain or loss is highly doubtful as a matter of law. In Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 1982), the court declared the following policy in this state:
"We approve the philosophy that there is an overriding need to allow clients freedom to substitute attorneys without economic penalty as a means of accomplishing the broad objective of fostering public confidence in the legal profession. Failure to limit quantum meruit recovery defeats the policy against penalizing the client for exercising his right to discharge. However, attorneys should not be penalized either and should have the opportunity to recover for services performed."
409 So.2d at 1021. Later the court made it clear that an attorney is not free to exact a penalty for the client exercising a right to discharge the attorney. The Florida Bar v. Doe, 550 So.2d 1111 (Fla.1989). Still later the court condemned a fee agreement provision that made the discharging client responsible for the fee provided in the original fee agreement unless the discharged lawyer, the client and the successor lawyer all agree on a substitute fee. The Florida Bar v. Hollander, 607 So.2d 412 (Fla.1992). Plainly, under these cases, the discharged lawyer cannot contend that he has suffered damages in lost fees equal to the amount of the original fee agreement.
The cases also leave us with doubts that the contempt court could punish the successor lawyer by a fine equal to the contract fee. If this result could obtain, it would not be fanciful to foresee a discharging client facing substantial difficulty in obtaining the services of a successor lawyer. Such difficulties could be understood as the client suffering a penalty simply for exercising the right to discharge the lawyer at any time. For the moment, however, it is sufficient for us to note the absence of anything in the present record that would authorize a fine in excess of the statutory limits on the theory of damages caused or gains derived. In sum, there is absolutely no legal foundation for the amount of the fine imposed in this case, and thus it is by any definition excessive.
We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HERSEY, J., concurs.
MAGER, GERALD, Senior Judge, concurs in part, dissents in part with opinion.
. See Taylor v. Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley P.A., 596 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We have been asked on this appeal to recede from the decision in that earlier appeal on the grounds that it is itself clearly erroneous. We decline to do so even though if we had been assigned to the panel we might have joined Judge Anstead in reversing the injunction. While we may believe that there is no authority for enjoining clients and lawyers from speaking to one another about the subject of the lawyer's representation — and that the existence of a dispute between lawyers contending for the client's continued representation appears to be the weakest of all possible justifications to enjoin communications between the contending lawyers and the client — nevertheless, we strongly feel that the lawyer enjoined is bound to follow the injunction thus affirmed so long as it is in effect.
. The order substituting Taylor's new firm was entered on 9 June 1992. Although the motion for contempt was filed on 15 May 1992, the hearing on the motion did not begin until 2 September 1992 and took four hearing days to finish.
. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.840.