HENRY A. RICCIO AND JEAN RICCIO, APPELLANTS,
v.
HERBERT HEITNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNER D/B/A HEITNER & ROSENFELD, 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.
The court held that a foreign attorney who dissolved his law partnership but continued representing clients without notice was estopped from challenging personal jurisdiction. The failure to disclose the dissolution and continuing representation as if the partnership existed kept the foreign partner amenable to service of process in Florida.
The court held that the failure to advise clients of the partnership dissolution and the continued representation as though the partnership existed constituted an estoppel, preventing the foreign partner from claiming the attorney-client relationship had ceased. The foreign partner remained amenable to service of process in Florida because the relationship had not terminated for the purposes for which the firm was originally employed.
[1] A dissolved law firm that continues to represent clients without notifying them of the dissolution may be estopped from claiming the attorney-client relationship has ceas…
[2] A foreign attorney who was a partner in a dissolved Florida law firm may be amenable to service of process in Florida if the firm continued to represent clients after dis…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the failure to advise the clients, the Riccios, of the dissolution of the lawfirm and continuing to represent as though the firm was in existence constituted an estoppel and prevented the individual members of the firm from claiming the attorney-client relationship had ceased”
Establishes the core holding that estoppel prevents a foreign attorney from escaping jurisdiction based on an undisclosed dissolution
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHerbert Heitner, a foreign attorney, became a partner in a Florida law firm called Heitner and Rosenfeld. The Riccios hired the firm on June 28, 1984 …
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 Malpractice Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Herbert Heitner, a foreign attorney, became a partner in a law firm with one Rosenfeld, here in Florida, under the name Heitner and Rosenfeld. The Riccios employed the firm to represent them in a real estate transaction on June 28, 1984. The law partnership was dissolved effective June 30, 1984, although no notice of such dissolution was ever given to the Ricc-ios. Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-110 (1970), superseded, Rule ⅛-1.-16(d), Chapter 4, Rules of Professional Conduct (1987).
Thereafter the firm purported to continue to represent the Riccios and concluded a purchase and sale of the real property and provided that payment on the purchase money note would be made at the offices of the firm of Heitner and Ro-senfeld. Subsequently the Riccios brought a malpractice action against Heitner and Rosenfeld, individually, and as members of a partnership, and against an associate, alleging malpractice in the representation in connection with the real estate transaction. Heitner was served pursuant to the provisions of the “long-arm” statute, Section 48.193(l)(b) Florida Statutes.
The trial court granted a motion to quash this service. This order we have under review and find error in its entry.
We hold that the failure to advise the clients, the Riccios, of the dissolution of the lawfirm and continuing to represent as though the firm was in existence constituted an estoppel and prevented the individual members of the firm from claiming the attorney-client relationship had ceased. The relationship had not terminated for the purposes for which the firm had been employed in the first instance, and therefore the foreign partner continued to be amenable to service in this state. Welsh v. Carroll, 378 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Frates v. Nichols, 167 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) and Section 48.193(1), Florida Statutes.
Therefore the order under review is reversed and the matter returned to the trial court for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Welsh v. Carroll, 378 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Frates v. Ferry Nichols, 167 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)