.

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Seismic Changes May Soon Be Coming to Florida Statutes for Comparative Negligence, Lodestar Fee, Statute of Limitations and One-Way Attorney’s Fees Against Insurers

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – April 2023

April 1, 2023

by Jonathan E. Kanov

With the support of Governor Ron DeSantis, Florida House Bill 837 was filed on February 15, 2023, which would bring comprehensive reforms to civil litigation in Florida. In an attempt to try to stomp out Florida’s notoriety as being one of the nation’s leaders in frivolous lawsuits, this legislation would dramatically change the state’s framework for comparative negligence, lodestar fees, statute of limitations and one-way attorney’s fees against insurers. “For decades, Florida has been considered a judicial hellhole due to excessive litigation and a legal system that benefitted the lawyers more than people who are injured,” said Governor DeSantis. “We are now working on legal reform that is more in line with the rest of the country and that will bring more businesses and jobs to Florida.” The bill also has the support of Florida Senate President Kathleen Passidomo and House Speaker Paul Renner. 
 
Florida Statute 768.81, which addresses comparative fault, would be amended to read that for negligence actions, “any party found to be greater than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm may not recover any damages.” Under current law, a plaintiff could still obtain a recovery even if a jury found him or her to be primarily at fault. For example, a plaintiff who is found to be 80% responsible by a jury can be awarded 20% of the damages based on an allocation of fault. With the new law, that same plaintiff would be barred from recovery, as would any plaintiff found to be at least 51% liable for their damages. 
 
To calculate an attorney’s fee award, Florida courts follow the lodestar method established by the federal courts. Fees are calculated using the number of attorney hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. However, courts may decide that the lodestar figure is insufficient and award a multiplier of between 1.5 to 3.0 in light of the contingency risk. The proposed revised Fla. Stat. 57.104, titled “Computation of Attorney Fees,” would create a “strong presumption that a lodestar fee is sufficient and reasonable” in any action in which attorney’s fees are awarded by the court. This presumption may only be overcome “in a rare and exceptional circumstance with evidence that competent counsel could not otherwise be retained.” If passed, plaintiffs’ attorneys will no longer regularly see fee awards that are doubled or tripled. 
 
House Bill 837 would reduce the statute of limitations for negligence actions from four years to two years in Fla. Stat. 95.11. This would result in all negligence actions having the same time limitations as the current more restrictive two-year period to bring a professional malpractice action (other than medical).
 
Additionally, the bill would eliminate one-way attorney’s fees in lawsuits against insurers, which provide for a fee award to a plaintiff who obtains a judgment against an insurer, no matter how small. One-way attorney’s fees were eliminated last year by the Florida Legislature for lawsuits against property insurers, and the new law would expand that prohibition to all lines of insurance. 
 
The House Civil Justice Subcommittee voted to approve the bill, and it moved forward in the legislative session started on March 7, 2023. 
 

 

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – April 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.