877.02
Solicitation of legal services or retainers therefor; penalty.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
877.02 Solicitation of legal services or retainers therefor; penalty.—
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person or her or his agent, employee or any person acting on her or his behalf, to solicit or procure through solicitation either directly or indirectly legal business, or to solicit or procure through solicitation a retainer, written or oral, or any agreement authorizing an attorney to perform or render legal service, or to make it a business to solicit or procure such business, retainers or agreements; provided, however, that nothing herein shall prohibit or be applicable to banks, trust companies, lawyer reference services, legal aid associations, lay collection agencies, railroad companies, insurance companies and agencies, and real estate companies and agencies, in the conduct of their lawful businesses, and in connection therewith and incidental thereto forwarding legal matters to attorneys at law when such forwarding is authorized by the customers or clients of said businesses and is done pursuant to the canons of legal ethics as pronounced by the Supreme Court of Florida.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person in the employ of or in any capacity attached to any hospital, sanitarium, police department, wrecker service or garage, prison or court, for a person authorized to furnish bail bonds, investigators, photographers, insurance or public adjusters, or for a general or other contractor as defined in s. 489.105 or other business providing sinkhole remediation services, to communicate directly or indirectly with any attorney or person acting on said attorney’s behalf for the purpose of aiding, assisting, or abetting such attorney in the solicitation of legal business or the procurement through solicitation of a retainer, written or oral, or any agreement authorizing the attorney to perform or render legal services.
(3) Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(4) This section shall be taken to be cumulative and shall not be construed to amend or repeal any other valid law, code, ordinance, rule, or penalty now in effect.
History.—ss. 1-4, ch. 59-391; s. 1146, ch. 71-136; s. 1425, ch. 97-102; s. 37, ch. 2006-12; s. 8, ch. 2025-40.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1966–2020 · leading case: Agudo, Pineiro & Kates v. Harbert Const.
Agudo, Pineiro & Kates v. Harbert Const. (1985)
“The issue presented in both cases is the applicability of section 877.02, Florida Statutes (1981) to the respective fact patterns.”
Thomas v. Ratiner (1984)
“By their cross-appeal all of the defendants allege the trial court erred in denying their motions for directed verdict on the ground that Thomas had solicited his contract with Nieves in violation of Section 877.02 Florida Statutes (1981) and that said act rendered Thomas's…”
Spence, Payne, Masington v. Philip M. Gerson (1986)
“3d DCA 1985), deals not with subsection 1, but rather subsection 2 of Section 877.02, Florida Statutes, which makes it unlawful for certain specified persons, such as hospital employees, to communicate with attorneys for the purpose of aiding the attorney in soliciting legal…”
Pace v. State (1979)
“The Court held the statute valid and elaborated as follows: The object of § 877.”
Gables Ins. Recovery, Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. (2018)
“at 777 (quoting § 877.02(1), Fla. Stat. (1981) ). We concluded that the evidence, in the light most favorable to Gerson, showed he "unlawfully solicited the legal business.”
State v. Palmer (2001)
“02(1) violated Article V, section 15 of the state constitution by intruding upon the Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction over the discipline of members of the Bar.”
Amendments Regulating Bar-Advertising (1999)
“1996); see also § 877.02, Fla. Stat. (1997) (lawyer anti-solicitation statute); Carricarte v.”
Campbell v. State (1970)
“2d 76 (1966), upholding F.S. § 877.02(1), F.S.A., prohibiting solicitation of legal business; McArthur v.”
SEARCY, DENNEY v. Scheller (1993)
“1986) (attorney whose fee contract is void for violation of § 877.02(1) is not entitled to quantum meruit fee).”
State ex rel. Farber v. Williams (1966)
“Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition from us directed to the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County to prohibit the prosecution of Petitioner therein for the alleged violation of F.S. § 877.02(1), F. S.A. The Dade County Grand Jury indicted Petitioner, alleging that the…”
The Florida Bar v. Gaer (1980)
“On January 9, 1978, respondent was found guilty on three counts of soliciting legal business in violation of section 877.02, Florida Statutes, and two counts of a bail bondsman advising the employment of a particular attorney to his principal in violation of section 648.”
State v. Globe Communications Corp. (1993)
“1979) [F.S. 877.02(1), the antisolicitation of legal business statute attacked on both facial validity and "as applied" grounds]; Roberts v.”
— 877.02(1) — 10 cases
Spence, Payne, Masington v. Philip M. Gerson (1986)
“3d DCA 1985), deals not with subsection 1, but rather subsection 2 of Section 877.02, Florida Statutes, which makes it unlawful for certain specified persons, such as hospital employees, to communicate with attorneys for the purpose of aiding the attorney in soliciting legal…”
Gables Ins. Recovery, Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. (2018)
“at 777 (quoting § 877.02(1), Fla. Stat. (1981) ). We concluded that the evidence, in the light most favorable to Gerson, showed he "unlawfully solicited the legal business.”
Pace v. State (1979)
“The Court held the statute valid and elaborated as follows: The object of § 877.”
State v. Palmer (2001)
“02(1) violated Article V, section 15 of the state constitution by intruding upon the Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction over the discipline of members of the Bar.”
Campbell v. State (1970)
“2d 76 (1966), upholding F.S. § 877.02(1), F.S.A., prohibiting solicitation of legal business; McArthur v.”
— 877.02(2) — 2 cases
Agudo, Pineiro & Kates v. Harbert Const. (1985)
“The issue presented in both cases is the applicability of section 877.02, Florida Statutes (1981) to the respective fact patterns.”
Thomas v. Ratiner (1984)
“By their cross-appeal all of the defendants allege the trial court erred in denying their motions for directed verdict on the ground that Thomas had solicited his contract with Nieves in violation of Section 877.02 Florida Statutes (1981) and that said act rendered Thomas's…”
— 877.02(3) — 1 case
Agudo, Pineiro & Kates v. Harbert Const. (1985)
“The issue presented in both cases is the applicability of section 877.02, Florida Statutes (1981) to the respective fact patterns.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.