LEON COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE HONORABLE CHARLES D. MCCLURE, CIRCUIT JUDGE, SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, AND ROBERT A. HARPER, JR., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Leon County sought certiorari review of a trial court's order awarding attorney's fees of $20,800 to appointed counsel representing an indigent criminal defendant, which exceeded the statutory maximum of $3,500 for capital cases. The appellate court held that while extraordinary circumstances may justify exceeding the statutory fee schedule, the amount awarded in this case was excessive and must be reduced on remand.
Trial courts retain authority to exceed the statutory fee maximum in extraordinary and unusual cases, but the fee awarded must be reasonable and not based on market value. While the circumstances here warranted departure from the statutory schedule, the hourly rate of $100 and resulting fee of $20,800 was excessive.
[1] Extraordinary and unusual circumstances may warrant an attorney's fee award exceeding statutory maximums for representation of indigent defendants.
[2] A trial court may award attorney's fees in excess of statutory maximums for appointed counsel in capital cases when the circumstances are extraordinary and unusual.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Despite this proscription trial courts retain the authority to award greater fees in extraordinary and unusual cases.”
Establishes the legal principle that statutory fee schedules are not absolute barriers when circumstances warrant departure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrivate counsel was appointed to represent an indigent defendant due to a public defender conflict. The case involved two homicides and several additi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Confiscatory Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Leon County petitions for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of an order awarding an attorney’s fee in excess of the statutory fee schedule for representation of an indigent criminal defendant. We find that the extraordinary circumstances of this case warrant a departure from the fee schedule, but that the amount awarded is excessive. We therefore grant certiorari and quash the challenged order as to the amount of the fee.
Private counsel was appointed to represent an indigent criminal defendant, due to a conflict within the public defender’s office. The court exceeded the statutory fee schedule established in section 925.036, Florida Statutes, in awarding an attorney’s fee. The fee order notes that this was a high profile case involving two homicides and several additional counts, heavily prosecuted by several state attorneys and involving complex legal issues including the defendant’s mental health. Indicating that the case was extraordinary and unusual, and suggesting that substantial prior experience in capital prosecutions was required, the court also noted that the victims were prominent and the entire resources of the state attorney’s office were utilized, with the state’s discovery response listing 135 potential witnesses. The appointed counsel’s time records evidence over 200 hours expended in the case, and affidavits submitted by two other attorneys state that an appropriate fee should exceed $20,000. The court concluded that $100 per hour would be a reasonable rate and awarded a fee of $20,800.
Section 925.036(2)(d), Florida Statutes, establishes the maximum attorney fee for trial representation in capital cases at $3,500. Section 925.036(1), Florida Statutes, provides that the fee awarded shall not exceed the statutory maximum. However, despite this proscription trial courts retain the authority to award greater fees in extraordinary and unusual cases. See Makemson v. Martin County, 491 So. 2d 1109 (Fla.1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 1043, 107 S.Ct. 908, 93 L.Ed.2d 857 (1987). As in Makemson, the present ease involves circumstances which render it sufficiently extraordinary and unusual as to permit an attorney’s fee in excess of the maximum established in section 925.036, Florida Statutes. See also, Lyons v. Metropolitan Dade County, 507 So. 2d 588 (Fla.1987).
Even though the trial court may exceed the statutory fee amount, the fee awarded is not to be based on market value. Rather, as Makemson emphasized, the court should award a reasonable fee which is not confiscatory of the attorney’s time, energy and talents. While the trial court purported to comply with this standard in the present case, the hourly rate awarded is far beyond that approved in Makemson or Lyons. It was appropriate for the court to exceed the statutory maximum, but the amount of the fee awarded is excessive.1
The challenged order is quashed as to the amount of the fee awarded, and the cause is remanded.
MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur. . Subsequent to counsel's efforts and the court's fee award, an administrative order relating to fees for appointed counsel became effective in the circuit. Such orders have been deemed controlling in other instances. See e.g., Hillsborough County v. Sinardi, 524 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Metropolitan Dade County v. Gold, 509 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Since the order was not effective in the present case, on remand it should not be binding although the court may consider it as a guide.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Escambia Cnty. v. F.T. Ratchford & The State of Fla., 650 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…d, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by not applying the appropriate hourly rates fixed by administrative order of the chief judge for the First Judicial Circuit. § 925.036, Fla.Stat. (1993); Leon County v. McClure, 541 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (quashing as excessive and remanding fee award to court-appointed counsel in capital case, noting that administrative orders relating to fees for appointed counsel have been deemed controlling in other cases), rev. denied sub nom…
-
Bobbitt v. State, 726 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…indigent defendants received reasonable representation, which could not be achieved without adequate compensation. Reasonable fees are those which are “not confiscatory of the attorney’s time, energy, and talents.” Makemson; Leon County v. McClure, 541 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Further, “[t]he appointment of counsel in any setting [*851] would be meaningless without some assurance that counsel give effective representation.” Remeta v. State, 559 So. 2d 1132 (Fla.1990). Again, their arguments are unper…
-
Lasley v. Palm Beach Cnty., 595 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…hile the respondent argues that the total fee was not unreasonable considering the entire case, the award of no fee for the work performed between July and September is confiscatory of the attorney’s time, energy and talents. Leon County v. McClure, 541 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Here based upon the July 1991 request for time expended only through June of 1991, the trial court determined that $10,000 was a reasonable fee. By denying the second much smaller fee request entirely, the trial court in effect…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Makemson v. Martin Cnty., 491 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1986)
- Bowman v. United States, 479 U.S. 1043 (U.S. 1987)
- Williams v. Marlboro State Hosp., 479 U.S. 1043 (U.S. 1987)
- State v. Kruse, 507 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1987)
- Lyons v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 507 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1987)
- Affordable Homes, Inc. v. McKINNEY-Green, Inc., 509 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Hillsborough Cnty. v. Sinardi, 524 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)