Sole v. Kneale

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 28, 1993

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1993-12-28

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 2003

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“There is no substantive basis for holding the attorney of record personally responsible for costs in the absence of authorization by a contract or statute ... or other than as a sanction for wrongdoing”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 651 So. 2d 748 - Bauer v. Hardy

Relies on 470 So. 2d 861 - Israel v. Lee · 519 So. 2d 72 - Harrison v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-12-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Appellants Sole and Pintado appeal a final order directing them to pay special master’s fees. We reverse.

¶2There is no substantive basis for holding the attorney of record personally liable for costs in the absence of authorization by a contract or statute, Israel v. Lee, 470 So.2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), or other than as a sanction for wrongdoing. Harrison v. State, 519 So.2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). See 7A *1000C.J.S. Attorney & Client, § 138 (1980) (In the absence of misconduct or of a statute or rule of court providing otherwise, an attorney is not liable for the costs of suit unless he has agreed to become liable). Because none of these circumstances were present, we reverse.