Court Opinion

ID: 9578133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:41:55.714745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:44.082129
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION OF
LUM, J.
WITH WHOM MENOR, J., JOINS
I respectfully dissent.
It is easy to see why the majority decided to reverse the Intermediate Court of Appeals. The majority’s perception of the facts is different from that of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals examined the transcript covering the hearing held by the trial judge1 and concluded, as I do, that the trial judge refused to consider the factor of the contingency nature of the contract and the reasonable *174estimated value of the case in the award of attorney’s fee. The majority, however, concludes from reading the same transcript that Attorney Ingman failed to furnish supportive information for the court to consider these factors. I submit that the lack of supportive information goes to the weight of the appropriate relevant factors but is not justification to disregard completely the contingency nature of the contract and the reasonable estimated value of the case.
I also express concern about the majority’s subscription to a principle of enhancement or advancement under a contingency contract as a precondition to the court’s consideration of the contingency nature of the contract and the reasonable estimated value of the case. Such a requirement only muddles the situation and denies discretion, when in fact the majority is attempting to preserve it, since it gives absolute weight to one factor over the others.

 MR. INGMAN: Well, it’s a rather complicated thing. I mean, the case is worth more than a hundred thousand, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It doesn’t matter what’s the case worth. I want to know what you did. You keep going back to the contingency. I’m not going to worry about contingency. I want to know what you did.