The Florida Bar v. Moriber
314 So. 2d 145 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney violates the Code of Professional Responsibility by charging a 'clearly excessive' fee, and may be disciplined even if the client consented to the fee arrangement. A contingent fee is manifestly improper for collecting funds that are not actually contingent, such as assets passing to a sole named beneficiary by operation of law.
Facts:
- After Theodore Pietz's mother died, he hired attorney Leonard Moriber to collect all moneys due to him as a result of her death.
- Moriber and Pietz entered into a written agreement for a contingent fee of 33 1/3% of the gross recovery if settled without a lawsuit.
- Moriber was aware that the primary asset was approximately $20,000 in a mutual trust fund in which Pietz was the sole named beneficiary, and Moriber believed there was no will or estate to probate.
- Without filing a lawsuit or facing any objections, Moriber collected a total of $23,949.41 on Pietz's behalf, primarily from the mutual fund, Social Security, and two other accounts.
- Moriber calculated his fee to be $7,983.14, which was one-third of the total amount collected.
- The services rendered involved writing approximately seven letters, completing a few forms, making some telephone calls, and taking one trip to New Jersey.
- Moriber refused to disburse the remaining funds to Pietz unless Pietz first executed a general release in Moriber's favor, a demand he persisted in even after Pietz began contesting the fee.
Procedural Posture:
- The Florida Bar filed a disciplinary complaint against attorney Leonard Moriber in the Supreme Court of Florida.
- The matter was heard by a Referee, who found that Moriber charged an excessive fee for collecting non-contingent claims.
- The Referee initially recommended that Moriber reimburse the client the difference between the fee charged ($7,983.14) and a reasonable fee ($2,500.00) plus expenses.
- When Moriber failed to comply, the Referee filed a supplementary report recommending a 45-day suspension from the practice of law if he did not comply.
- Moriber continued to refuse to reimburse the client.
- The Referee then filed a second supplementary report withdrawing the prior recommendations and substituting a final recommendation that Moriber be suspended for 45 days for failing to reimburse the clearly excessive fee.
- The Supreme Court of Florida then reviewed the Referee's report and recommendations.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney violate the Code of Professional Responsibility by charging a one-third contingent fee for collecting undisputed funds that require minimal legal effort, where the client was the sole named beneficiary of the primary asset?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. An attorney violates the Code of Professional Responsibility by charging a clearly excessive fee under these circumstances. The court found that Moriber's fee of $7,983.14 was so 'clearly excessive' as to warrant discipline. The court reasoned that a contingent fee arrangement was 'manifestly improper' because the recovery of the funds was not contingent on any uncertain event; the primary asset passed to the client by operation of law. The matter was not difficult, presented no novel legal issues, and required very little time or effort from the attorney—so little that the work could have easily been performed by a layman. The court rejected Moriber's defenses, stating that client consent does not justify a grossly disproportionate fee and that the need for confidentiality is inherent in all attorney-client relationships and does not justify an excessive charge. An attorney may be disciplined for charging a clearly excessive fee even without a showing of fraud or dishonesty.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that an attorney's fee must be reasonable and proportional to the services rendered, regardless of the fee agreement signed by the client. It establishes that using a contingent fee arrangement for a non-contingent, simple collection matter is improper and can lead to professional discipline. The case serves as a significant precedent in attorney ethics, clarifying that courts have the authority to scrutinize fee arrangements and protect clients, particularly those who may be unsophisticated, from overreaching by attorneys. Future disciplinary actions regarding excessive fees will look to the factors applied here, focusing on the substance of the legal work rather than just the form of the client's agreement.
