April 1, 2015 Florida Fourth DCA Opinion Shows the Considerations to be Made Before Entering into “Joint Representation.” Should you “buddy up” when it comes to hiring a Palm Beach Probate Litigator?

An attorney serves as counsel for the party they represent, in most cases a  clients interest is among the top concerns of a Palm Beach Probate Litigator. What happens when you have mutliple parties that hire the same lawyer, who is the ultimate duty owed to? The first client? The one who has the largest share of the inheritance? Is it ever a good idea to enter into an agreement for joint representation of your probate claims?

• joint representation is when an attorney represents more than one client in the same dispute. For example two robbers may rob a bank, they may decide they have the same needs, to get out of jail, and thus they hire the same lawyer. The problem is its not always that simple.
• An attorney who represents people jointly can be in a rock and a hard place, because they have to look out for both parties interests at the same time – which can be hard when often inheritance is a zero sum game. 
• Put another way, if Bob from Boca Raton leaves one million dollars to his heirs and two heirs go to Larry the Lawyer for help, every dollar he gets for one client, is another dollar the other client wont get. (an exception would be a marriage.)
• For this reason, under the rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney has to advise (and will usually get something in writing to confirm this) the clients of the nature of joint representation. 
• A case decided today (April 1, 2015) out of the Fourth DCA highlights the concerns of joint representation rather well.

Florida Court holds that Father may have a chance to bring a malpractice claim against the law firm that got him 200 thousand dollars for a claim that got his ex-wife 4 million dollars. 

• The father here tried to sue his attorney for negligence after he and his ex-wife hired the law firm to jointly represent them in the wrongful death action of their minor daughter.
• After the daughter died in a car crash, the parents hired a law firm to represent them jointly, and at trial the jury awarded the mother 4 million dollars and the father got a stark 200 thousand dollars. 
• The point of his suit was that the law firm did not properly explain to him how the system of joint representation worked, and the risks involved.
• Was it negligent of the law firm to take this case for both parties? These types of firm usually collect contingency pay in other words they get a percentage of what they get their clients. So do you think they were motivated by the idea of a double reward here as opposed to splitting those fees with another firm?
• Want to read the entire case? Check out the case of Pitcher v. Zappitell by clicking here.