Fee Pursuit Draws Suspension

An attorney’s conduct in filing unauthorized pleading to pursue a fee in an eminent domain matter drew a three-year suspension from the Florida Supreme Court.

The court sustained the findings and proposed sanction of a referee

Rush was seeking fees based on his argument that moving the retention pond would provide a nonmonetary benefit to the client, the value of which would be $8,300,000. Based on the statute, the attorney’s fees would equal approximately $1,730,000. However, Rush never achieved the nonmonetary benefits for the client. There was not an agreement to move the pond before Rush was fired, and pond relocation was not included in the mediated settlement agreement or the final judgment. Seeking compensation based on benefits never obtained is patently unreasonable. After the mediated settlement agreement, the amount of attorney’s fees due to Rush was calculated to be $110,000.

Thus, Rush’s interpretation of his fee agreement and relentless attempts to seek these fees constitute an attempt to collect an illegal, prohibited, or clearly excessive fee or cost in violation of the rule. We conclude that the record supports the referee’s findings of fact and that such findings are sufficient to support the recommendation that Rush violated Bar Rule 4-1.5.

Unauthorized pleadings

Here, despite North Park’s desire to settle the matter quickly with FDOT to facilitate the sale of the property, Rush kept filing unauthorized motions seeking to advance his claim of nonmonetary benefits, which would result in a greater attorney fee award for Rush. Rush argues that North Park’s original goal was to have the pond moved as a nonmonetary benefit, and he continued to fight for that goal. However, Rush’s focus was on obtaining greater attorney’s fees for himself, and his continued argument for nonmonetary benefits delayed the settlement of the eminent domain case and could have caused the sale of the property to fall through. Rush’s interest in obtaining greater attorney’s fees was in direct conflict with the client’s goal of settling the case quickly. We conclude that the record supports the referee’s findings of fact and that such findings are sufficient to support the recommendation that Rush violated Bar Rule 4-1.7.

Respondent had filed lis pendens

in seeking payment of fees, Rush filed two lis pendens to encumber the property, which were subsequently dissolved. Rush did not have more than an equitable interest in the property, which was an insufficient basis for his lis pendens actions. Rush also filed numerous lawsuits seeking legal fees based on his unsuccessful nonmonetary benefits argument. Rush also attempted to have the mediated settlement in the eminent domain case set aside as he claimed it was a “sham” and “fraudulent.”

Sanction

Based on Rush’s repeated failure to accede to North Park’s clear directives and his unwillingness to put his client’s interests over his own pecuniary gain, as well as his conduct toward other attorneys involved in the eminent domain proceedings, we agree with the referee that Rush’s deliberate disregard of his professional obligations warrants a severe sanction.

(Mike Frisch)