Florida's Third District Court of Appeal ruled on a narrow exception for fees claimed by a withdrawing attorney.

It found a client's conduct which justified withdrawal could permit a contingency fee attorney to recover fees in quantum meruit, or a reasonable sum of money for services when the amount due is not stipulated in a legally enforceable contract.

The dispute over attorney fees stemmed from an Engle Tobacco case in which Carl Palomino, an attorney of the Law Office of Carl Palomino in Coral Gables, represented Raul Berea, in a wrongful death action against several tobacco manufacturers and distributors.

Miriam Hernandez, the acting personal representative of Berea's estate, hired Palomino through a contingency fee contract. Palomino worked on the case for several years and then withdrew due to a disagreement with Hernandez. But despite Palomino's withdrawal, he was still able to collect attorney fees in quantum meruit.

Now the Third DCA has affirmed the Miami-Dade Circuit Court ruling that awarded Palomino over $37,000 in attorney fees, a reduction of one-third of the amount Palomino requested, according to a lower court motion.

In the Engle case, a represented class of Florida citizens were awarded $145 billion in punitive damages by a jury verdict. On appeal, an appellate court overturned the jury verdict and the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed that ruling. In addition, the Florida Supreme Court decertified the class, which meant members of the original lawsuit could only file cases individually.

Palamino filed his motion for attorney fees, and described that he and Hernandez had irreconcilable differences in the wrongful death action. Palomino specifically described the disagreements he had with his client, which included whether Hernandez would advance the cost of experts, Hernandez's credibility on two different issues, and the attorney and client's inability to agree on any coherent settlement strategy.

Palomino declined to comment, and Hernandez did not respond to a request for comment.

These irreconcilable differences prompted Palomino to file a charging lien and withdraw, citing "ethical and professional obligations," the Third DCA opinion stated.

Read the Third DCA opinion:

When Palomino moved to enforce his charging lien, seeking recovery of earned fees in quantum meruit, the Miami-Dade Circuit Court awarded him a portion of the requested fees.

On appeal, the Third DCA cited DePena v. Cruz in its opinion. Based on that precedent, the appellate court stated an attorney who voluntarily withdraws from representing a client before the occurrence of a contingency would forfeit his right to compensation.

However, Faro v. Romani provides for a narrow exception in those rare cases where "the client's conduct makes the attorney's continued performance of the contract either legally impossible or would cause the attorney to violate an ethical rule of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar."

The Third DCA stated in its opinion that Hernandez's conduct had sought to undermine the integrity of the prosecution and subvert the judicial process. It found that under those circumstances, "Palomino was entitled to recovery in quantum meruit."