## Facts

- A client retained attorney Raymond G. Ingalsbe and his firm to sue an automobile dealer under Florida’s Lemon Law.
- The attorney and client executed a written fee agreement with alternative fee calculations, including: (1) 40% of recovery plus an additional 5% (or $10,000 if greater) for any appeal; (2) a statutory court-awarded fee if greater; or (3) $300/hour if the client settled against counsel’s advice.
- A jury returned a verdict of about $21,000 for the client; on the dealer’s appeal, the appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to improper exclusion of defense evidence.
- After remand, the dealer approached the represented client directly and negotiated a settlement without the attorney’s participation.
- The dealer and client agreed to a settlement including $35,000 in damages and attorney’s fees initially discussed as 33⅓% plus costs; after learning of the existing fee contract terms, the dealer increased the fee component to 40% plus $10,000 for the prior appeal and tendered that amount to the attorney as “payment in full.”
- The attorney rejected the tender and sued the dealer for intentional interference with the attorney-client fee contract.
- The trial court dismissed the interference complaint, concluding Florida’s litigation privilege provided absolute immunity for the dealer’s conduct.
- The attorney appealed the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida’s litigation privilege bars, at the pleading stage, a lawyer’s claim that an opposing party intentionally interfered with the lawyer’s fee contract by negotiating a settlement directly with the represented client.

## Decision

- The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held the litigation privilege did not provide absolute immunity for the alleged direct, extra-judicial settlement dealings that interfered with the attorney-client fee contract.
- The court concluded the complaint sufficiently stated a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations and could not be dismissed on privilege grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Florida’s litigation privilege affords absolute immunity for acts occurring in judicial proceedings that bear a relation to the proceeding, protecting litigation communications and advocacy-related conduct from later civil liability.
- The privilege is not a blanket defense for all conduct connected to litigation; it does not automatically immunize alleged interference with an existing attorney-client fee contract through direct negotiations with a represented party.
- On a motion to dismiss, a court accepts well-pleaded allegations as true and should not dismiss on privilege grounds unless immunity clearly appears on the face of the complaint.
- A claim for intentional interference with contractual relations may proceed where the plaintiff alleges a valid contract, the defendant’s knowledge, intentional interference, and resulting damages, absent a conclusive immunity.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reinstated the attorney’s interference claim, ruling that Florida’s litigation privilege did not bar allegations that a litigation opponent bypassed counsel and negotiated directly with the client in a way that impaired the attorney’s contractual fee rights.


Ingalsbe v. Stewart Agency, Inc., 869 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)