Parker Waichman Can't Get Departing Lawyer's $4.2M Contingency Fee, Florida Court Rules
"These law firms that handle cases on contingency, like plaintiffs firms, can't simply call their attorneys partners, and then try to be entitled to the full fee when they leave," West Palm Beach lawyer J. Chris Bristow said.
October 03, 2019 at 02:22 PM
5 minute read
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal has blocked an attempt by New York law firm Parker Waichman to collect a $4.2 million contingency fee from a tobacco verdict, after an attorney left partway through the case and took the client with him.
The case made it clear: A firm is entitled to the full contingency fee for general partners who leave and take clients with them, but not if the departing attorneys are limited partners or associates. And the ruling created important case law for attorneys leaving their employers.
Parker Waichman had hoped to trade its $93,203 slice for the full contingency fee in the Florida case, reasoning that because Naples lawyer Jordan Chaikin was a partner, he owed the firm a financial duty after setting up his own practice.
But the appellate court found Chaikin wasn't really a partner, because the firm never treated him like one. It found Chaikin didn't have access to financial information or capital of the partnership, and could not have voted on partnership matters. The court also found the attorney didn't have a share of the firm's profits, and received only discretionary bonuses as managing partners determined his salary.
The appellate panel also noted Parker Waichman promoted Chaikin after a 2010 Florida Bar investigation into the firm for having a Florida office without a licensed partner in the state, a violation of bar rules.
Chaikin was the firm's only Florida lawyer at the time, responsible for screening Engle progeny cases, according to the opinion, which said managing partner Jerrold Waichman agreed to change the firm's practices to comply with the Florida Bar. Waichman did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.
Parker Waichman then named Chaikin a "profit partner" and "supervisory partner," according to the appellate panel, which found no evidence he ever had equity in the firm.
"While Chaikin's title may have changed, his duties, responsibilities and compensation did not," the opinion said. "Calling Chaikin a 'partner' may have satisfied the firm's obligations under Florida Bar rules, but mere labels do not control the outcome here."
When Chaikin left, tobacco plaintiff Linda Purdo followed, striking up an agreement with Chaikin and co-counsel Alex Alvarez of the Alvarez Law Firm in Coral Gables. Just one month before trial, Palm Beach Circuit Judge Cymonie Rowe entered an order substituting them for Parker Waichman, which responded with a charging lien.
Jurors awarded plaintiff Purdo $33.5 million in the underlying litigation in April 2016, the largest verdict in Palm Beach County at the time. Parker Waichman then sought Chaikin's full $4.2 million contingency fee, arguing it had spent 116 hours on the case and paid $17,803 in costs.
Rowe dismissed the charging lien with prejudice, instead awarding the firm its costs plus $75,000, based on Chaikin's $650 an hour rate.
Separation case law
Fort Lauderdale attorneys Bruce Rogow and Tara Campion, who represented Parker Waichman, said they were disappointed with the ruling and its implications.
"The decision creates an unfortunate opportunity for disloyalty and duplicity in law firms," Rogow said. "Perhaps I am 'old school' in thinking that lawyers should not be so motivated by financial gain. We are considering [a] rehearing."
J. Chris Bristow of Critton, Luttier & Coleman in West Palm Beach represented tobacco plaintiff Purdo. He said the ruling could become a seminal opinion for attorneys leaving law firms, because existing case law was sparse, consisting of only a 2013 Eleventh Circuit decision and a 1964 Third DCA ruling.
"It's important because these law firms that handle cases on contingency, like plaintiffs firms, can't simply call their attorneys partners and then try to be entitled to the full fee when they leave," Bristow said.
Bristow also found it noteworthy that Parker Waichman presented evidence of spending 116 hours on the case, but sought the whole fee.
"They didn't participate in the trial, they didn't attend any days of trial, yet they wanted the entire fee," he said. "If you do the hourly rate at $4 million, they wanted about $35,000 an hour for the work that they did."
Fourth District Court of Appeal Judge Mark Klingensmith wrote the opinion, with Judges Burton Conner and Jeffrey Kuntz concurring.
Read the court opinion:
More appeals:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRogge Dunn Represents Florida Trucking Firm in Civil RICO Suit Against Worldwide Express
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250