It has been nearly ten years since the First District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Miles v. City of Edgewater Police Department.
Since then, the process of approving attorneys’ fees in workers’ compensation cases has become more complicated, not less.
The question is simple. Why? :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
The Plain Language of Miles
The holding in Miles is straightforward. A claimant may waive the statutory limitations on attorneys’ fees, and enter into a fee agreement with counsel, subject only to approval by the Judge of Compensation Claims.
The court made it clear that once the statutory restriction is waived, the proper course is to approve the agreement between the claimant and their attorney.
That implies something critical.
The agreement should be approved at the outset of representation.
Approval Should Be Simple
The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar already provide a framework for evaluating fee agreements.
Under those rules, the court’s role is limited. It is not to evaluate the merits of the case. It is not to second guess strategy.
The court is only required to determine two things:
- The client understands their rights
- The client understands and agrees to the fee
If those conditions are met, the agreement should be approved.
That is how fee approval works everywhere else in Florida.
What We Are Doing Instead
In workers’ compensation, courts are doing something very different.
They are applying Lee Engineering and Rule 4-1.5(b) to evaluate the reasonableness of agreed fee contracts.
This is where the problem begins.
Lee Engineering Does Not Apply Here
The Lee Engineering factors were never intended to evaluate agreed fee contracts between a lawyer and a client.
They were created to resolve disputes. Specifically, disputes where there is no agreement on the fee.
That distinction matters.
When there is a contract between a lawyer and a client, there is privity. Both parties have agreed to the terms in advance.
Applying Lee Engineering in that context ignores the existence of the agreement entirely.
Privity of Contract Changes Everything
Florida law consistently draws a line between three types of parties:
- Contracting parties, who agreed to the fee
- Absent parties, such as class members, who did not
- Adverse parties, who are required to pay fees through statute or judgment
Only in the latter two situations do courts step in to determine reasonableness.
Why? Because those parties never agreed to the fee.
When there is privity of contract, the agreement controls.
Where the Confusion Comes From
The confusion stems from language in Miles referencing Lee Engineering and Rule 4-1.5(b).
That language is dicta. It relates to criminal exposure for attorneys, not the process of approving a fee agreement.
It does not require courts to apply those factors when a valid contract exists.
Approval Must Happen at the Start
There is no logical system where a lawyer and client perform years of work together without knowing whether their agreement will be enforced.
No other area of law operates this way.
Approval must happen at the outset of representation. That is the only way to ensure both parties understand and rely on the agreement.
The Real Problem
The current system creates unnecessary burden on judges and attorneys.
It forces courts to analyze fees after the work is complete, instead of simply approving the agreement at the beginning.
It ignores contract law. It ignores precedent. And it creates uncertainty where none should exist.
The Fix Is Simple
Follow the plain language of Miles.
Approve the fee agreement at the outset of representation.
Do what every other court in Florida already does.
Stop making this more complicated than it needs to be.
What Is Tort Reform, Really?