1. In tort or contract cases taken on a contingency, factors to consider when determining the appropriateness of a fee multiplier include whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel, whether the attorney was able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment, and whether any factors set forth in previous cases are applicable.
2. The factors enumerated in previous cases include the time and labor required, the likelihood that accepting the case will preclude other employment for the lawyer, the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services, the amount involved and the results obtained, time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances, the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer performing the services, and whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
3. Recent cases have limited the application of a fee multiplier in certain types of cases, which affects the analysis conducted when determining the appropriateness of a fee multiplier. – Fee multipliers are not appropriate for attorney’s fees awarded by the Offer of Judgment Statute in Florida.
– The purpose of a fee multiplier is to encourage litigation, while the purpose of the Offer of Judgment Statute is to encourage settlement.
– The Offer of Judgment Statute is considered penal in nature and is intended to encourage settlement, making fee multipliers inapplicable. 1. The availability of competent counsel without the need for a fee multiplier can negate a claim for the necessity of a multiplier.
2. Most cases taken on contingency do not support a fee multiplier, as the client’s financial inability to pay legal fees is the primary reason for contingency cases.
3. The current trend is that insureds in coverage disputes with their insurers are not entitled to a fee multiplier, except for some recent cases that have affirmed a multiplier in insurance coverage disputes.
4. The most important factor in determining whether a fee multiplier is appropriate is the willingness of a substantial number of attorneys to take the case on contingency.
5. A fee multiplier may be appropriate when there is a large number of attorneys willing to take the case on contingency and settle for a small percentage of the amount due, but are not willing to take the case to trial. – Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe allows for a 3.0 multiplier in some cases.
– Standard Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom limits the maximum multiplier to 2.5 in Florida.
https://www.jimersonfirm.com/blog/2017/03/fee-multipliers-florida-basics/
Leave a Reply