Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 877.02
S877.02 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - SOLICITATION OF LEGAL SERVICES OR RETAINERS - M: F
CopyCited 18 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 433, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6508
...Gerson engages in the practice of law), the sum of $280,000, being the trial judge's assessment of the reasonable value of services rendered by Gerson to Mrs. Irene Speiller. We hold that because the employment of Gerson was solicited in violation of Section 877.02(1), Florida Statutes (1981), any agreement to employ him was void, and any services rendered by him pursuant to the purported agreement not compensable under a quantum meruit theory....
...court entered judgment for Gerson in the amount of $280,000, that is, fifty percent of the total fee. It is appellant's position here, as it was below, that Gerson's contract with Mrs. Speiller was invalid because illegally procured in violation of Section 877.02(1), Florida Statutes (1981)....
...Any attorney who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree... ." [3] This court's recent opinion in Agudo, Pineiro & Kates, P.A. v. Harbert Construction Company,
476 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), deals not with subsection 1, but rather subsection 2 of Section
877.02, Florida Statutes, which makes it unlawful for certain specified persons, such as hospital employees, to communicate with attorneys for the purpose of aiding the attorney in soliciting legal business....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...y rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and law of the United States * * *"; State ex rel. Farber v. Williams,
183 So.2d 537 (Fla. 1966), cert. den.
385 U.S. 845,
87 S.Ct. 42,
17 L.Ed.2d 76 (1966), upholding F.S. §
877.02(1), F.S.A., prohibiting solicitation of legal business; McArthur v....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1999 WL 1289031
...d, to act as a lawyer in this state ... shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.... See State v. Foster,
674 So.2d 747 (Fla. 1st DCA) (upholding constitutionality of section
454.23), review dismissed,
677 So.2d 840 (Fla. 1996); see also §
877.02, Fla. Stat. (1997) (lawyer anti-solicitation statute); Carricarte v. State,
384 So.2d 1261 (Fla.1980) (upholding constitutionality of section
877.02)....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 517229
...4th DCA 1982) (attorney not entitled to fee under quantum meruit where fee agreement procured by coercion, duress and threats); Spence, Payne, Masington & Grossman P.A. v. Philip M. Gerson P.A.,
483 So.2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied,
492 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1986) (attorney whose fee contract is void for violation of §
877.02(1) is not entitled to quantum meruit fee)....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...Gen., and Margarita Esquiroz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee. BOYD, Justice. Anthony Pace, a member of The Florida Bar, was convicted following jury trial in the County Court of Dade County, of solicitation of legal business in violation of section 877.02(1), Florida Statutes (1973)....
...may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business... ." Id. at 428-29,
83 S.Ct. at 335,
9 L.Ed.2d at 415. In State ex rel. Farber v. Williams,
183 So.2d 537 (Fla. 1966), this Court upheld section
877.02 against contentions that it was vague and overbroad. The opinion of the Court made reference to the Button decision and the freedom of expression concerns emanating therefrom. The Court held the statute valid and elaborated as follows: The object of §
877.02(1) is to prohibit the solicitation of legal business by an attorney directly or by his agent or employee, or by another acting in his behalf....
...agent or employee or similar status with the attorney recommended which contemplates solicitation of legal business for the attorney. ...... As interpreted above, we do not find the statute to be violative of the State or Federal Constitution. F.S. Section 877.02(1), F.S.A., falls in the class of acts mala prohibita within the province of the legislature to enact....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 326
...While several points have been raised on the main and cross-appeals, we need to discuss only one in determining this appeal. By their cross-appeal all of the defendants allege the trial court erred in denying their motions for directed verdict on the ground that Thomas had solicited his contract with Nieves in violation of Section 877.02 Florida Statutes (1981) and that said act rendered Thomas's contract void ab initio and incapable of being sued upon. We agree with this contention for the following reasons. Thomas contends that when he signed the contract with Nieves he was contacting him as a lawyer, not as a doctor, thus Section 877.02, Florida Statutes (1981) is not applicable to him and he was not guilty of violation thereof. This contention is simply without merit. Section 877.02(2) provides: "It shall be unlawful for any person in the employ of or in any capacity attached to any hospital ......
...y virtue of the fact that he was present in the hospital in his capacity as an employee. This cannot be changed by his mere statement that he is now a lawyer. Therefore, we find that Thomas acquired the retainer agreement from Nieves in violation of Section 877.02(2), Florida Statutes (1983)....
...The right to contract is subject to the general rule that the agreement must be legal and if either its formation or its performance is criminal, tortious or otherwise opposed to public policy, the contract or bargain is illegal. See 11 Fla.Jur.2d, Contracts § 81, Restatement of the Law, Contracts § 512. Certainly Section 877.02, Fla....
...contract. No such cause of action lies for interference with a contract void as against public policy and which makes one who is a party thereto, as the appellant in the instant case, guilty of a criminal act for entering into such an agreement. See Section 877.02 of the Florida Statutes (1981)....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2183
...The trial court agreed with Harbert and entered the contested final summary judgment. At oral argument, this court raised an issue on its own motion: the relevance of Thomas v. Ratiner,
462 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) to this case. The issue presented in both cases is the applicability of section
877.02, Florida Statutes (1981) to the respective fact patterns....
...This statute sets criminal penalties for the communication, by an employee of a hospital, with an attorney, for the purpose of aiding or assisting that attorney in the solicitation of legal business. In Thomas v. Ratiner , we held the fee contract obtained by the doctor/attorney in derogation of section 877.02 *1314 to be void ab initio....
...1984), we have decided that there are too many serious constitutional, procedural and factual questions presented in this case to allow us to proceed on the record before us. Therefore, we are remanding this action to the trial court for a full resolution of the issues discussed herein. II. The statute in question, section 877.02, states in relevant part: (2) It shall be unlawful for any person in the employ of or in any capacity attached to any hospital, sanitarium, police department, wrecker service or garage, prison or court, or for a person authorized to fu...
...The rules suggest, then, that the defense of illegality is waivable. If so, then in a contractual setting, the contract becomes merely voidable. The only defense that appears to be absolute and unwaivable is the defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(h). Perhaps section 877.02 (albeit implicitly) suggests an analogous defense....
...rights." N.A.A.C.P. v. Button,
371 U.S. at 439,
83 S.Ct. at 341,
9 L.Ed.2d at 421. Thus, the trial court, on remand, must strictly scrutinize the circumstances surrounding Ms. Mason's communication with Reyes and attorney Pineiro to make certain, as section
877.02 apparently requires, that she was clearly acting as an agent for Pineiro; clearly acting for the purpose of aiding Pineiro in the solicitation of legal business....
...There is no question on this record, as accurately reflected in the majority opinion, that but for the actions of the employee at the health care facility the lawfirm of Agudo, Pineiro and Kates, P.A., would not have been employed by the patient. Florida Statute, Section 877.02(2) (1979) reads in part as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person in the employ of... any ... sanitarium ... to communicate directly ... with any attorney ... for the purpose of ... any agreement authorizing the attorney to perform ... legal services." Violation of this statute is a crime. See Section 877.02(3) Florida Statutes, (1979)....
...HENDRY, HUBBART, NESBITT, BASKIN, DANIEL S. PEARSON, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ., concur. SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge (dissenting). It is my view that the undisputed facts of the situation demonstrate that the attorney-client agreement in question was entered into in violation of section 877.02(2), Florida Statutes (1979), and that the panel decision, which fails to hold that this action for tortious interference with such a contract may not be maintained as a matter of law, is therefore in conflict with Thomas v....
...NOTES [1] Reyes cancelled a meeting with appellants which was scheduled for the same day as the Reyes/Lepp meeting. Appellants assert that somebody at Harbert called Reyes and told him to cancel the meeting with his attorneys. [2] It needs to be emphasized that section 877.02(2) does not refer to a retainer fee contract or a fee agreement. Nor does subsection (2) contain the provisos set out in subsection (1). Thus, section 877.02(2) arguably applies even if the person specified in the statute refers someone to a legal services organization or an attorney who takes the case on a pro bono publico basis....
...Furthermore, as will be discussed infra, the original purpose of the statute was to provide a means for punishing attorneys involved in a certain type of public interest litigation for which no fees would be charged. [3] Thus, appellees' argument that the defense of illegality on the basis of section 877.02 is subsumed in the defense of illegality on the basis of the unconscionable fee arrangement and thus we could find that the trial court's ruling was right (albeit for the wrong reason) is simply incorrect....
...State, Department of Transportation,
448 So.2d 1036, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) makes clear, the "right for the wrong reason" appellate maxim does not apply in summary judgment proceedings where the issue was never raised in the motion for summary judgment. As appellees admitted, section
877.02 was never raised below at all. [4] The Virginia statute struck down in N.A.A.C.P. v. Button was similar to section
877.02....
...873 (1954)] which brought within their barratry statutes attorneys paid by an organization such as the N.A.A.C.P. and representing litigants without charge. Id. at
371 U.S. 445,
83 S.Ct. 344,
9 L.Ed.2d 425. (Footnote citing to the specific statutes omitted). While section
877.02 was never used for the purpose for which it was enacted, it is important to know its genesis before making categorical statements about what the legislature intended when it enacted section
877.02....
...[6] Counsel for appellants stated at oral argument that no one could find Ms. Mason to take her deposition and it was not pursued because it was not thought to be important to locate her. [1] The defendants pled that the contract was void for reasons other than Section
877.02 of the Florida Statutes, (1979), however, it has long been established appellate law in this state that a trial court can be right for any reason which is supported in the record. Gary v. Party Time Company, Inc.,
434 So.2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Crown Life Insurance Company v. Garcia,
424 So.2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). [2] Florida Statute, Section
877.02(2) (1979) "It shall be unlawful for any person in the employ of or in any capacity attached to any hospital, sanitarium, police department, wrecker service or garage, prison or court, or for a person authorized to furnish bail bonds, i...
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 21 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2129, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7991, 1993 WL 287721
...) motion". See Brown v. State,
358 So.2d 16 (Fla. 1978) (F.S. 847.04, prohibiting "profane, vulgar and indecent speech * * * within the hearing of others" attacked on both facial and "as applied" grounds); Pace v. State,
368 So.2d 340 (Fla. 1979) [F.S.
877.02(1), the antisolicitation of legal business statute attacked on both facial validity and "as applied" grounds]; Roberts v....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...r procure through solicitation either directly or indirectly legal business, or to solicit or procure through solicitation a retainer, written or oral, or any agreement authorizing an attorney to perform or render legal service." Id. at 777 (quoting § 877.02(1), Fla....
..., shift, or device," that violation would be punishable by the Department of Financial Services, with fines or the denial, suspension, or revocation of the public adjuster's license as specified in section
626.8698, Florida Statutes (2017). Sections
877.02, "Solicitation of legal services or retainers therefor; penalty," and
817.234, "False and fraudulent insurance claims," Florida Statutes (1981).
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 280378
...3d DCA 1979) (legal fees may be divided if agreement met the requirements of DR 2-107). See generally, Spence, Payne, Masington & Grossman, P.A. v. Philip M. Gerson, P.A.,
483 So.2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA) (agreement to employ attorney was void where agreement violated Section
877.02(1), Florida Statute (1981)), rev....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1980 Fla. LEXIS 4126
...During this onemonth period, the bail bondsman referred three clients to respondent. Respondent represented these three clients and shared part of his attorney's fees with the bail bondsman. On January 9, 1978, respondent was found guilty on three counts of soliciting legal business in violation of section
877.02, Florida Statutes, and two counts of a bail bondsman advising the employment of a particular attorney to his principal in violation of section
648.44, Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 838201
...There, the Court recognized that, pursuant to the police power, the legislature can enact penal statutes that affect the legal profession. In Pace, a Florida Bar member was convicted of the solicitation of legal business in violation of the so-called anti-solicitation statute, section 877.02(1), Florida Statutes (1973). [1] Pace argued that, because the solicitation of legal business is subject to professional discipline by the Florida Supreme Court, section 877.02(1) violated Article V, section 15 of the state constitution by intruding upon the Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction over the discipline of members of the Bar....
...Thus, neither the holding nor the language of Weisser is dispositive of the resolution of the instant case. REVERSED and REMANDED for reinstatement of counts two, three and four of the state's information against Palmer. WOLF and PADOVANO, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 877.02(1), Florida Statutes (1973), provided in pertinent part, as follows: (1) It shall be unlawful for any person or his agent, employee or any person acting on his behalf, to solicit or procure through solicitation either directly or indir...
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...r procure through solicitation either directly or indirectly legal business, or to solicit or procure through solicitation a retainer, written or oral, or any agreement authorizing an attorney to perform or render legal service." Id. at 777 (quoting § 877.02(1), Fla....
..., shift, or device," that violation would be punishable by the Department of Financial Services, with fines or the denial, suspension, or revocation of the public adjuster's license as specified in section
626.8698, Florida Statutes (2017). Sections
877.02, "Solicitation of legal services or retainers therefor; penalty," and
817.234, "False and fraudulent insurance claims," Florida Statutes (1981).
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1966 Fla. LEXIS 3718
ERVIN, Justice. Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition from us directed to the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County to prohibit the prosecution of Petitioner therein for the alleged violation of F.S. § 877.02(1), F....
...ender legal service. The bases upon which the writ is sought are: (1) that the Dade County Grand Jury is void and unconstitutional because *538 the statutes creating and establishing it were enacted contrary to the Florida Constitution and (2), F.S. § 877.02(1), F.S.A., the statute purporting to make it a criminal offense to solicit legal business, is unconstitutional. The contention that the Dade County Grand Jury is without constitutional status was recently rejected by us. See State ex rel. Worthington v. Cannon, opinion filed December 8, 1965, rehearing denied January 19, 1966. F.S. Section 877.02(1), F.S.A., reads as follows: “(1) It shall be unlawful for any person or his agent, employee or any person acting on his behalf, to solicit or procure through solicitation either directly or indirectly legal business, or to solicit...
...737 ,
30 So.2d 102 , which holds that when a statute uses words of no determinative meaning and its language is so general and indefinite as to embrace not only acts-properly and legally punishable but others-which cannot be punished, it will be declared void for uncertainty. Petitioner contends that F.S. §
877.02(1), F.S.A.,....
...National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Button,
371 U.S. 415 ,
83 S.Ct. 328 ,
9 L.Ed.2d 405 , is cited also;, it held a statute unconstitutional which, made it a crime for a person to advise another that his legal rights have been infringed and refer him to a particular-attorney. Section
877.02(1) does not appear to us to be unconstitutionally vulnerable on the bases of the challenges urged by Petitioner. The object of §
877.02(1) is to prohibit the solicitation of legal business by ait *539 attorney directly or by his agent or employee, or by another acting in his behalf....
...814 ,
9 So.2d 192 ; 19, 5 Am.Jur., Attorneys at Law § 274, Annot. 14 A.L.R.2d 740 ; 20, State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Murrell (1954, Fla.)
74 So.2d 221 .] As interpreted above, we do not find the statute to be violative of the State or Federal Constitution. F.S. Section
877.02(1), F.S.A., falls in the class of acts mala prohibita within the province of the legislature to enact....
