A Florida appellate court just challenged 60 years of attorneys’ fee practice with the Sixth District Court of Appeal changing the playbook for fee litigation in Florida.
In Ruffenach v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, the court held that trial judges do not automatically need an evidentiary hearing, or expert testimony to award attorneys’ fees. That is a sharp departure from the long-running assumption in Florida practice that both were required in virtually every fee dispute.
Here is the twist: the Sixth DCA still reversed the fee award. Not because there was no hearing or fee expert. It was reversed because Deutsche Bank failed to submit records detailing the legal work performed. That distinction matters. The opinion says the real issue is whether the court has enough competent proof to do the lodestar analysis, not whether the parties went through a ritual of presenting a “fees expert” in every case.
The court’s reasoning is blunt that no statute requires a fee expert, no rule requires a fee hearing in every case, and trial judges are already experienced in evaluating legal work, hourly rates, and billing reasonableness. The opinion also certifies conflict with decisions from Florida’s other DCAs, so this could be headed to the Florida Supreme Court.
For lawyers in the Sixth District, the old automatic argument, “no expert, no hearing, automatic reversal” just got much weaker. But this is not a free pass. Fee movants still need real proof, especially with time records, support for hourly rates, and a record that allows the trial court to apply the lodestar method. The bigger message from the Sixth DCA is even broader: do not assume old district court precedent is safe just because it has been repeated for decades. That may be the most important part of this opinion.