CHANDRIS, SA v. Yanakakis

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the defendant “was not in Florida on a transitory basis” because “he had resided in Florida since 1980 (15 years) but apparently chose not to seek admission to The Florida Bar”
• holding that contingency fee contract “must comply with the rule governing contingent fees in order to be enforceable. ... a contract that fails to adhere to these requirements is against public policy and is not enforceable”
• holding that “prohibiting the practice of law by those who have not been examined and found qualified to practice ... is done to protect the public from being advised and represented in legal matters by unqualified persons over whom the judicial department can exercise little, if any, control”
• “[W]e find that Florida contingent fee agreements entered by attorneys not subject to our professional regulations are unauthorized legal services and are void as against public policy.”
• “[W]e hold that a contingent fee contract entered into by a member of The Florida Bar must comply with the rule governing contingent fees in order to be enforceable.”
• \[A] contract that fails to adhere the [Florida Bar rule governing contingent fees] is against public policy and is not enforceable by the member of the Florida Bar who has violated the rule.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).