Can a Florida lawyer charge interest on unpaid fees and on advanced costs?

Plain-English summary

In Opinion 71-26 the committee had found it permissible for attorneys to charge interest at an agreed legal rate on fees not paid when due. The question in this opinion was whether the same treatment applies to advancements of costs.

The committee found no basis for distinguishing between fees and cost advances for the purpose of charging interest. It concluded that the Code of Professional Responsibility does not prohibit a lawyer from charging a lawful rate of interest on liquidated fees and costs, either as provided in advance by written agreement or, in the absence of a written agreement, upon reasonable notice. The committee stated its view that 60 days would constitute reasonable notice.

The opinion adds that in determining the appropriate and lawful rate of interest, attorneys must adhere to the guidelines provided in The Florida Bar v. Fields, 482 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 1986).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a Florida lawyer charge interest on unpaid fees?

A: Per the opinion, yes, at a lawful rate, either by advance written agreement or, absent an agreement, upon reasonable notice.

Q: Does the same rule apply to advanced costs?

A: Yes. The opinion found no basis for treating cost advances differently from fees and concluded interest may be charged on liquidated costs on the same terms.

Q: How much notice is "reasonable" if there is no written agreement?

A: The committee stated its view that 60 days would constitute reasonable notice.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the Code of Professional Responsibility's treatment of fees and costs (the predecessor to current Rule 4-1.5 on fees; Model Rule 1.5) and directs lawyers to the Florida Supreme Court's guidance in Fields for setting a lawful interest rate.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Fla. Rule 4-1.5 (fees) / Model Rule 1.5 (subject matter; the opinion analyzes the predecessor Code of Professional Responsibility)

Cases:

• The Florida Bar v. Fields, 482 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 1986), guidelines on a lawful interest rate

Other opinions cited:

• Fla. Ethics Opinion 71-26 (interest on overdue fees)

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 88-1: Suing a Client for Unpaid Fees
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 87-12: No Retaining Lien on Earmarked Funds
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 90-2: Reporting a Delinquent Former Client

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-86-2/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-86-2-1.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 86-2
April 15, 1986
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.

Lawyers may charge a lawful rate of interest on liquidated fees and costs either as provided in advance by written agreement or upon reasonable notice.

Opinion: 71-26
Case: The Florida Bar v. Fields, 482 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 1986).

In Opinion 71-26 this Committee found it permissible for attorneys to charge interest at an agreed legal rate for fees not paid when due. The question now before the Committee is whether attorneys likewise may charge interest on advancements of costs.

The Committee finds no basis for distinguishing between fees and costs advances for the purpose of charging interest. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the Code of Professional Responsibility does not prohibit an attorney from charging a lawful rate of interest on liquidated fees and costs, either as provided in advance by written agreement or, in the absence of a written agreement, upon reasonable notice. It is the committee's view that 60 days would constitute reasonable notice.

In determining the appropriate and lawful rate of interest to be charged, attorneys must adhere to the guidelines provided in The Florida Bar v. Fields, 482 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 1986).