King v. Young, Berkman, Berman & Karpf
District Court of Appeal of Florida
709 So. 2d 572 (1998)
- Written by Casey Cohen, JD
Facts
Richard King (defendant) hired the law firm of Young, Berkman, Berman & Karpf, P.A. (plaintiff) (firm) to represent him in his divorce proceedings. The firm prepared a fee agreement that provided for a $25,000 retainer and set the hourly rates that the firm would charge. The fee agreement also included a section that stated that if the matter concluded with a divorce for King, the firm would be entitled to an additional fee, which was referred to as a “bonus” fee, that would be determined by the firm and would be reasonable and fair. During the divorce proceedings, King paid $342,989 to the firm based on the hourly rates charged by the firm. The firm secured a divorce for King. After the matter ended, the firm demanded King pay the firm a $750,000 bonus. King refused to pay the bonus. The firm sued King, seeking a $1,150,000 bonus. The trial court awarded the firm $525,000 in additional fees. King appealed the trial court’s award. King argued that the bonus clause of the fee agreement was unenforceable, because it created an improper contingency fee based on results obtained in a divorce proceeding.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per Curiam)
Concurrence/Dissent (Green, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.