Case Name: ADAMS, GEORGE, LEE, SCHULTE, & WARD, P. A., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1979-06-22
Citations: 597 F.2d 570
Docket Number: No. 77-1650
Parties: ADAMS, GEORGE, LEE, SCHULTE, & WARD, P. A., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 597
Pages: 570–577

Head Matter:
ADAMS, GEORGE, LEE, SCHULTE, & WARD, P. A., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants.
No. 77-1650.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 22, 1979.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 9, 1979.
Robert C. Ward, Amy Shield Levine, Miami, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellants, cross-appellees.
James F. Comander, Eugene Heiman, Miami, Fla., for defendants-appellees, cross-appellants.
Before TUTTLE, TJOFLAT and HILL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
TUTTLE, Circuit Judge:
This is one of those rare cases in which a law firm sues its client for attorneys' fees. The case is complicated by the fact that the attorney plaintiffs retained possession, under what they call a "retaining lien," of $300,000 in cash which they recovered for the client, against a claimed fee of $75,000. It is further complicated by the fact that they kept the client's money in a non-interest-bearing "trust account" and now claim a right to interest on the fee awarded them from the time it was earned until the date of the district court's judgment.
The plaintiffs, Adams, et al., P.A., were employed by defendant Westinghouse to file a suit against a Florida contractor and his insurers for damage done to Westinghouse equipment while in transit in Florida. Westinghouse had filed a previous suit in Chicago, but thought it desirable to have Florida counsel file this particular action in order to prevent the running of the statute of limitations in the event of lack of success in the earlier action.
The suit was terminated by the payment by each of three insurers of the limits of their liability, totalling $300,000. This amount was placed in the firm's trust account. This handling of the fund was done unilaterally without the consent of Westinghouse. The-latter was notified by a proposed closing agreement on June 24, 1975, that plaintiffs were holding the sum subject to the payment of their claimed "reasonable" fee of $75,000. This amount was based upon the plaintiffs' contention that the normal fee for the filing of what they called a subrogation suit would have been one-third of the recovery, but since they were forwarding counsel in the case, plaintiffs reduced the claim to $75,000, or twenty-five percent of the recovery.
After some exchange of correspondence, Westinghouse made a demand on the plaintiffs for $300,000 with interest, stating that the attorneys' claim for a fee was a separate and distinct issue, the existence of which did not warrant their retention of the proceeds of the settlement.
During the course of the correspondence between the parties, Adams, et al., offered to place the settlement amount in an interest bearing account if agreed to by Westinghouse. This agreement was not forthcoming.
When the case came on for trial, the court found that there' was no agreement for a contingent fee; that, therefore, the law firm would be entitled to a reasonable fee. The court stated: "Plaintiff is not entitled to recover an attorney's fee on a contingent fee basis, but on the basis of time expended, the nature of the services rendered, the responsibilities assumed, the complexity of the case, the amount involved, the results obtained, and the other considerations set forth in the Code of Professional Responsibility." The court found such a fee to be $55,000.
The court also found that it was improper for plaintiffs to retain more than the amount of their claimed fee of $75,000 from the amount of the settlement and that the plaintiffs were obligated to remit immediately at least $225,000 to Westinghouse. The court determined that the failure of the plaintiffs to place the $300,000 in safe obligations bearing at least six percent interest obligated them to pay interest at six percent on the sum of $225,000 from the date of the demand on January 21, 1976, until the court by a supplementary order on January 28, 1977, caused the funds to be deposited in the registry of the court and subsequently to be paid to the defendants.
The trial court made no provision for interest on the sum of $55,000 for which it entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
Adams, et al., bring this appeal, claiming that they have been improperly charged with interest on that part of the client's fund which exceeded the maximum claim they were making for a fee and contending that they were entitled to interest on the $55,000 fee from the date it was earned, rather than only from the date of the final judgment.
Westinghouse claims that the action of the law firm in keeping its $300,000 settlement money after demand was made for it amounted to a conversion of its funds and was such unconscionable conduct as to deprive the law firm of the right to any fee, and that even if such a fee was allowable, Westinghouse was entitled to have interest on the excess of $225,000 and should not be held liable for interest on the $55,000 fee.
Briefly stated, the law firm claims that it has what is known as a "general or retaining lien," which it says operates on any property in its hands that belongs to a client who owes it any amount of money, no matter how valuable the property held or how small the amount of the claim. This lien is distinguished from a "charging lien" which arises when counsel obtains property or collects money in litigation and claims a lien for services in creating the fund. A principal distinction between these types of liens is that the retaining lien cannot be foreclosed whereas the charging lien can. Plaintiffs frankly contend that the value of the retaining lien is that it gives them great leverage by creating "embarrassment" to the client who is unable to get any part of its money until the relatively small part owed to the lawyers has been agreed upon. They cite a district court opinion for this proposition. In dictum, the United States Court for the Southern District of Florida stated: "Its [the retaining lien's] value to the attorney is only in proportion to the extent that such retention by him will embarrass the client." Cooper v. McNair, 49 F.2d 778 (S.D.Fla.1931). They also cite a New Jersey case which says: "the effectiveness of the lien is proportionate to the inconvenience of the client in being denied access to his property." Brauer v. Hotel Associates, Inc., 40 N.J. 415, 192 A.2d 831, 835 (1963).
However, appellants cite no Florida case which even approaches the degree of coercion that is represented by the facts here. Nor, in fact, do they cite any Florida case which recognizes the right of a lawyer to retain money under a retaining lien in excess of the actual amount of the maximum claim which he makes against the client.
No such lien is recognized under federal common law. We therefore look to the state law to determine whether it condones what otherwise would be a conversion by the lawyer of property belonging to his client. In Hoxsey v. Hoffpauir, 180 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. 1950), this court said: 180 F.2d at 86. The same rule obtains when such a lien is provided for under the common law of a state instead of by statute. See Webster v. Sweat, supra.
It is the general rule that while the Federal law provides no such remedy, Federal Courts sitting in a State enforce that State's statutes creating attorney's liens. Webster v. Sweat, 5 Cir., 65 F.2d 109; Brooks v. Mandel-Witte Co., 2 Cir., 54 F.2d 992, 994, and citations.
A Florida case that most nearly answers the question presented here is Florida Bar v. Heller, 248 So.2d 644 (Fla.1971). That case, while it appears to erase the distinction between what under the common law of some states constituted a retaining lien as contrasted to a charging lien, speaks clearly on the issue before us. It was an original proceeding to review a referee's report recommending disbarment of a Florida lawyer, Heller. Heller had collected the sum of $4,610 on behalf of a client, Pan American Surety. He retained the money, claiming not only that he was entitled to one-third of the amount as a fee for its collection, but that he also had a claim of $10,600.18 for other services. In the words of the Florida Supreme Court, he "claimed a lien on the entire proceeds of the Barnett judgment as security for the payment of his claim against the receiver for Pan American." The matter of Heller's lien was presented to a Florida circuit judge who ruled that Heller was not entitled to a lien on the funds recovered in the Barnett case, except for the agreed one-third fee. This decision was affirmed by a per curiam decision of the district court of appeal. Heller v. State ex rel. Larson, 192 So.2d 501 (Fla. App.1966). A petition for certiorari was denied by the Florida Supreme Court, Heller v. State ex rel. Larson, 201 So.2d 461 (Fla.1967). Pending the appeal to the district court of appeal, Heller's supersedeas bondsman became insolvent and Heller failed to post a substitute bond or pay the money to the receiver. Thereafter, a formal complaint was filed against him by the Florida Bar. Dealing with this matter, the Supreme Court of Florida said:
when the original supersedeas bond was cancelled due to receivership of the surety company, and the appellate courts held that he did not have a valid retaining lien on the funds, Heller was under an absolute obligation to either post a substitute supersedeas bond or pay the money to the Receiver. He did neither and continued to withhold funds belonging to his client, the Receiver.
248 So.2d at 646 (emphasis added).
Thus, the Florida Supreme Court, although denying certiorari in Heller's first appeal from the district court of appeal decision, made it apparent in the subsequent disbarment proceedings that it fully recognized that the court of appeal had held "that [Heller] did not have a valid retaining lien on the funds." We conclude, therefore, that under Florida law an attorney is not permitted to withhold payment to a client of his money over and above the maximum amount of the attorney's claim against the client. In the present case, therefore, such retention of the sum of $225,000 after demand by the client amounted to a conversion of the client's money.
Since the appellant's withholding of the excess amount was not justified, this warranted the trial court's decision to require the attorneys to pay interest on the retained amount.
The appellants also claim that under Florida law, attorney's fees, unlike other unliquidated demands, bear interest from the date payment is due to the date of judgment, citing Huntley v. Baya, 136 So.2d 248 (Fla.App.1962). The difficulty with plaintiffs' position is that they had the funds in their possession during the entire period of time and, as we view the appropriate rule of the Florida Bar, it would have been entirely proper for the plaintiffs to have retained the amount they claimed for their attorneys' fees in an interest bearing account pending final resolution of the correctness of the claim. The plaintiffs having unilaterally taken custody of the funds, it would be wholly illogical to determine that the client should pay them interest for the amount ultimately established as being due them.
As to Westinghouse's cross-appeal that the amount of the fee was inadequately considered by the trial court and that the court's determination was not expressly based upon the twelve factors for determining the amount of attorneys' fees mentioned by this court in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974), we conclude the point is not well taken. Johnson dealt with the discretionary award of attorneys' fees to a prevailing party in a Title VII suit as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). What is involved here is not a discretionary fee awarded to allocate the costs of litigation among parties, but the valuation of an obligation agreed to by attorney and client, the subject of the litigation. Cf. Wolf v. Frank, 555 F.2d 1213, 1214 (5th Cir. 1977) (Johnson prescribes valuation of fees "for services rendered in those cases where the law authorizes the allowance of discretionary fees"). Second, the right to a fee here arises not out of federal statutes or equitable practice but out of the Florida provision for reasonable attorneys' fees when services by counsel are furnished at the client's request but no contract has been made with respect to the amount of fees. Under such circumstances, we think the trial court properly measured the reasonable value of the attorneys' services and translated this into a dollar amount in light of the factors specified in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
We do not seriously consider the cross-appellant's contention that the wrong ful retention of its money by the law firm deprived the latter of its entitlement to any fee whatever. Such a holding would have to be in the exercise of a trial judge's equitable discretion, if available to the appellant at all. We consider that the trial court properly concluded that a fee of $55,-000 properly should be awarded in this case.
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
. We are in no way enlightened as to what constitutes such an account. So far as the record appears, such an account could be either an interest bearing or non-interest-bearing account. In actuality, it was an account that did not bear interest.
. While it does not appear why this agreement was not made, Westinghouse may well have thought that its agreement to place the funds in an interest bearing account would validate its retention by the law firm, which it did not intend to agree to.
. Rule 11.02(4), Integration Rule of the Florida Bar reads as follows:
Money or other property entrusted to an attorney for a specific purpose, including advances for costs and expenses, is held in trust and must be applied only to that purpose. Money and other property of clients coming into the hands of an attorney are not subject to counterclaim or setoff for attorney fees, and a refusal to account for and deliver over such property and money upon demand shall be deemed a conversion. This is not to preclude the retention of money or other property upon which the lawyer has a valid lien for his services or to preclude the payment of agreed fees from the proceeds of transactions or collections. Controversies as to the amount of fees are not grounds for disciplinary proceedings unless the amount demanded is clearly excessive, extortionate or the demand is fraudulent.