GARY O. SHEAR, APPELLANT,
v.
HORNSBY AND WHISENAND, P.A., ET AL., 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 the record was not sufficiently developed to grant summary judgment, as genuine issues of material fact remained regarding attorney fee liability advice.
A contractor hired a law firm for a contract dispute and was ordered to pay attorney's fees after losing. The contractor then sued the law firm for ne…
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 Statutory Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gary Shear appeals from a final summary judgment in an action for legal malpractice. For the following reasons, we reverse.
Shear, a general contractor, hired Horns-by & Whisenand to represent him in a contract dispute with a former client.1 The law firm filed suit for Shear, seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, and, in the alternative, seeking an equitable lien and damages under a quantum meruit theory. The trial court ultimately denied Shear recovery upon a finding that no contract existed between the parties. Because Shear had not prevailed on the mechanic’s lien claim, the trial court ordered Shear to pay the defendant attorney’s fees of $36,067.02 pursuant to section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1989).
Shear then sued the law firm, alleging, inter alia, that the firm had negligently advised him to file a claim to foreclose a mechanic’s lien and had not informed him of his potential liability for attorney’s fees should that claim prove unsuccessful.
The record is not sufficiently developed to support the granting of summary judgment as genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether the client was properly advised of his possible exposure to an award of statutory attorney’s fees. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
. The action against the firm has been stayed because the firm filed for dissolution. This appeal concerns the liability of the individual attorney who represented Shear.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marine Res. Dev. Found., Inc. v. Moore, 121 So. 3d 1072 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…ctions do not resolve the “genuine issue of material fact as to whether the attorney’s conduct fulfilled the requisite standard of care.” Daytona Dev. Corp. v. McFarland, 505 So. 2d 464, 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). In Shear v. Hornsby & Whisenand, P.A., 603 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), for example, summary judgment was reversed because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the law firm sufficiently advised a client that he might end up being liable for opposing fees if the client pursued a…