Syfert Injury Law Firm

employment of Gerson was solicited in violation of Section 877.02(1), Florida Statutes (1981), any agreement

S.Ct. 42, 17 L.Ed.2d 76 (1966), upholding F.S. § 877.02(1), F.S.A., prohibiting solicitation of legal

dismissed, 677 So.2d 840 (Fla. 1996); see also § 877.02, Fla. Stat. (1997) (lawyer anti-solicitation statute);

(attorney whose fee contract is void for violation of § 877.02(1) is not entitled to quantum meruit fee). These

solicitation of legal business in violation of section 877.02(1), Florida Statutes (1973).[1] During the

solicited his contract with Nieves in violation of Section 877.02 Florida Statutes (1981) and that said act rendered

presented in both cases is the applicability of section 877.02, Florida Statutes (1981) to the respective

grounds); Pace v. State, 368 So.2d 340 (Fla. 1979) [F.S. 877.02(1), the antisolicitation of legal business statute

or render legal service." Id. at 777 (quoting § 877.02(1), Fla. Stat. (1981) ). We concluded that the

attorney was void where agreement violated Section 877.02(1), Florida Statute (1981)), rev. denied, 492

of soliciting legal business in violation of section 877.02, Florida Statutes, and two counts of a bail

of the so-called anti-solicitation statute, section 877.02(1), Florida Statutes (1973).[1] Pace argued

or render legal service." Id. at 777 (quoting § 877.02(1), Fla. Stat. (1981) ). We concluded that the

Petitioner therein for the alleged violation of F.S. § 877.02(1), F. S.A. The Dade County Grand Jury indicted