Mitchell v. Flatt
The Second District affirmed entitlement to discovery sanctions against defense counsel under Rule 1.380(d) but reversed the $4,695 attorney's fee award without remand because the fee-seeking attorney presented no expert testimony on reasonableness. Applying Cottman v. Cottman, the majority held that where counsel consciously declined a continuance and proceeded despite admitted knowledge of the expert-testimony requirement, no second evidentiary hearing is warranted. Judge LaBrit dissented, arguing Snow v. Harlan Bakeries required remand and that the majority relied on an unbriefed theory and an oral-argument concession.
Key facts
- Mitchell sought attorney's fees as discovery sanctions under Rule 1.380(d) against defense counsel Flatt, presenting only his own testimony regarding the reasonableness of hours and hourly rate without expert evidence.
- The trial court awarded $4,695 in attorney's fees to Mitchell based on his self-testimony, despite Flatt's argument that expert testimony was required to establish reasonableness.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a significant fee-litigation trap: a party that knowingly forgoes required expert testimony on fee reasonableness may lose the fee entirely, with no second evidentiary hearing. Practitioners seeking… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.