Air Turbine Technology, Inc. v. Quarles & Brady, LLC, Quarles & Brady, LLP and Richard Horn, 165 So. 3d 816

Air Turbine Technology, Inc. sued Quarles & Brady and Horn for legal malpractice over advice about exposure to Atlas Copco’s attorney’s fees.
Private Brand Agreement allowed recovery of ‘legal costs and expenses’ but not expressly attorney’s fees.
Air Turbine relied on Horn’s assurance that fee exposure did not exist; rejected a $500,000 settlement based on that advice.
At federal court, Atlas Copco prevailed on two claims; Air Turbine’s fee exposure issue was litigated under Florida law.
Florida trial and appellate courts ruled that the contract’s costs/expenses language did not include attorney’s fees; judgmental immunity was invoked to shield the attorney.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Malpractice based on fee-exposure advice	Air Turbine asserts Horn misadvised on fee exposure.	Horn’s advice aligned with Florida law on costs/expenses.	No malpractice; advice correct.
Judgmental immunity applicability	Immunity should not bar review of bad advice.	Good faith, diligent inquiry; immunity applies.	Judgmental immunity applies; no liability.
Interpretation of ‘legal costs and expenses’ clause	Clause should include attorney’s fees.	Florida law excludes attorney’s fees absent explicit inclusion.	Excludes attorney’s fees; no liability.

Air Turbine Tech., Inc. v. Atlas Copco AB, 336 F. App’x 986 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (contract interpretation of costs/expenses; fees not included without express language)
Crosby v. Jones, 705 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1998) (judgmental immunity; good faith may shield error in unsettled law)
Dade Cnty. v. Peña, 664 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1995) (American Rule; strict construction of fee-shifting provisions)
Miller v. Miller, 107 So. 3d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (strict construction of attorney’s fees provisions in contracts)
Wendel v. Wendel, 852 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (costs/expenses vs. attorney’s fees; express inclusion required)