• Government
• Profession
• Business
• Opinion
• Health

• Health reform
• H1N1
• P4P
• EMRs
• Medicare
• Liability
• AMA House
• » More

• Book Excerpt
• Business Pitch
• Meetings
• » More

• Contract Language
• Ethics Forum
• In the Courts
• Practice Management
• Technically Speaking
• » More

• Issue dates
• Regions
• Health plans
• Sections
• News briefs
• Columns
• Editorials
• Letters
• Writers
• Other years

• Search tips
• E-mail alert
• Radio
• RSS
• Mobile
• Subscribe
• Institutions
• Staff directory
• Advertising
• Permissions
• Reprints
• News media
• Site guide
• Useful links
• About
• Premium
• Contact

Doctors take lawyer fees fight to Florida Supreme Court

Physicians want to prevent lawyers from pressuring patients to pay the higher fees allowed in the Florida Bar rules.

By Mike Norbut, amednews staff. Nov. 7, 2005.

• PRINT|
• E-MAIL|
• RESPOND|
• REPRINTS|
• SHARE

A new battle over attorney contingency fees is brewing in Florida, as doctors seek to bring bar association rules in line with limits established by a constitutional amendment voters approved last year.

The Florida Medical Assn. has filed a petition with the state Supreme Court requesting to change the bar rules. The move has been met with resistance from trial attorneys around the state. The high court was flooded with objections during its comment period, as lawyers registered their opinions by the dozens.

But regardless of how many individual comments are made, the medical society argues that the Supreme Court, which has final authority over the state's bar rules, should listen to the voice of the people.

"The people of Florida have spoken," FMA spokeswoman Lisette Mariner said. "What we're trying to do is follow through and make sure the amendment is followed."

Attorneys, on the other hand, argue that patients have a right to waive their right to the lower fees established by the amendment. Changing the bar rules would undermine that right, they say.

Lawyers also say the court should at least wait until the amendment withstands a legal challenge before even considering changing bar rules.

"The FMA wants this amendment to be treated differently than other constitutional rights," said Michael B. Feiler, president-elect of the Dade County Trial Lawyers Assn., which filed comments objecting to the proposed changes. "In effect, what the FMA wants to do is take away the right for people to contract as they see fit."