Williams v. Victim Justice, P.C., 198 So. 3d 822

Williams retained a series of contingency-fee lawyers for a personal-injury case (Itzler; then Victim Justice/Clune; then Dolce). Those firms withdrew before a contingency was achieved; the trial court found grounds for withdrawal under Rule 4-1.16.
Heller (appellants) subsequently represented Williams, settled the case, and held settlement funds in his firm's trust account. The settlement amount is not disclosed.
Victim Justice, Clune, Dolce, and Dolce Law (appellees) sued appellants on a quantum meruit theory to recover fees for their prior representation; they did not file a charging lien in the underlying PI case.
Appellees moved for an order to preserve assets (a temporary injunction) to freeze the settlement proceeds in the Heller trust account so funds would remain available if they prevailed on quantum meruit. They filed no verified pleadings or affidavits and presented no live evidence.
A magistrate recommended, and the trial court entered, an order freezing the funds. The order contained no detailed factual findings and a bond was not required.
The Second District reversed, holding the injunction was legally erroneous because the court failed to make required factual findings, no evidentiary hearing occurred, and no bond was set.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a temporary injunction preserving settlement funds was appropriate	Appellees: irreparable harm and risk of dissipation; need to preserve funds pending quantum meruit claim	Appellants: no charging lien was filed; injunction sought without evidence or bond; inadequate showing	Reversed — injunction improperly entered because required factual findings and evidentiary support were lacking
Whether the trial court made sufficient findings to support a temporary injunction	Appellees: magistrate’s recommendation and court’s adoption suffice	Appellants: order lacks clear, definite factual findings required by rule and precedent	Reversed — order failed to state sufficient factual findings supporting each injunction element
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before issuing the injunction	Appellees: argued urgency and risk justified freezing funds on motion/argument	Appellants: stressed disputed facts and absence of competent evidence; requested evidentiary hearing	Reversed — no evidentiary hearing occurred despite disputed facts; substantial competent evidence was absent
Whether bond was required for the temporary injunction	Appellees: did not obtain or propose a bond	Appellants: Rule 1.610(b) requires a bond	Reversed — failure to require a bond was error

Faro v. Romani, 641 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1994) (contingent-fee lawyer who withdraws voluntarily generally forfeits fee unless client conduct makes performance impossible or ethically prohibited)
Kountze v. Kountze, 20 So. 3d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (order preserving assets is temporary injunctive relief)
Orkin Extermination Co. v. Tfank, 766 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (temporary injunctions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Morgan v. Herff Jones, Inc., 883 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (injunction reviewed as mixed question; factual findings entitled to deference)
Smith v. Coalition to Reduce Class Size, 827 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2002) (standards for review when injunction rests on factual vs. legal matters)
Liberty Fin. Mortg. Corp. v. Clampitt, 667 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (trial court must address likelihood of success on merits in injunction order)
Randolph v. Antioch Farms Feed & Grain Corp., 903 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (failure to provide sufficient factual findings for temporary injunction requires reversal)
City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Advert. Co., 634 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (trial court must supply clear, definite factual findings supporting each injunction element)
Polk County v. Mitchell, 931 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (four-factor test for temporary injunction)