Lawyer who withdrew from contingent fee case for health reasons may not have forfeited his right to fee  [Added 11/1/07]  --  Collier v. Bohnet, 966 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

    NOTE:  The Fourth DCA's decision did not discuss two points of possible interest.  First, the Faro court indicated that the exception to the rule that a withdrawing lawyer gives up the right to share in a continent fee applied when a lawyer was forced to withdraw as a result of the client's conduct.  "We hold that when an attorney withdraws from representation upon his own volition, and the contingency has not occurred, the attorney forfeits all rights to compensation.  . . .  We further hold, however, that if the client's conduct makes the attorney's continued performance of the contract either legally impossible or would cause the attorney to violate an ethical rule of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, that attorney may be entitled to a fee when the contingency of an award occurs."  Faro v. Romani, 641 So.2d 69, 71 (Fla. 1994) (emphasis added).  Second, there are Florida cases holding that a quantum meruit fee that is paid to a lawyer who was discharged without cause in a contingent fee case is to be paid from the client's share of the recovery.  See, e.g., Jones & Granger v. Johnson, 788 So.2d 381 (Fla. 1^st DCA 2001); Doremus v. Florida Energy Systems of South Florida, Inc., 676 So.2d 444 (4th DCA 1996); Stabinski, Funt & De Oliveira, P.A. v. Alvarez, 490 So.2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Adams v. Fisher, 390 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

Defense counsel's "nodding acquaintance" with key state witness was not conflict of interest requiring counsel's withdrawal; defense counsel did not err in failing to withdraw; RPC 4-3.5(d)(4) constitutional.  [Added 10/17/07]  --  Kormondy v. State, 983 So.2d 418 (Fla. 2007).

Second DCA outlines procedure for lawyers to follow when withdrawing from or appearing in cases already on appeal.  In re P.G., 944 So.2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).  NOTE:  See also S.H. v. Department of Children and Family Services, 955 So.2d 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Client's absence from defense counsel's ex parte disclosure to court of counsel's concerns about his ability to be effective (due to anticipated bar complaint and client perjury) violated client's due process rights.  Frett v. State, 864 So.2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).