MIAMI (Legal Newsline) - A man who refused to pay a contingency fee to Boies Schiller and challenged an arbitrator’s decision requiring him to do so lost in court, with a Florida appeals court agreeing with the arbitrator who called him “the ultimate salesman” willing to say what he needed to save money.
David C. Metalonis hired Boies Schiller in 2018 to represent him in a lawsuit over some undeveloped property near Hard Rock Stadium in Miami. His contingency fee agreement with the law firm provided for a cash fee based on the value of any settlement, or an interest in the property. Metalonis and Boies Schiller also agreed to arbitrate any disputes.
After a year of litigation, Boies Schiller negotiated a settlement which brought Metalonis $2.45 million in cash and a two-acre parcel of land. After signing the agreement, Metalonis argued it was unenforceable. A trial court ruled against him, and Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.
Metalonis hired a new law firm to represent him for the transfer of the land, while Boies Schiller started arbitration to collect its fee. Metalonis responded with a legal malpractice counterclaim for $30 million. Meanwhile, he accepted transfer of the property with an agreed-upon value of $2 million.
In arbitration, Boies Schiller sought a fee based on the cash and non-cash value of the settlement. Metalonis argued his former lawyers couldn’t collect on the cash portion because they tricked him into signing the settlement agreement, and said the property was only worth $50,000 by the time he took ownership.
The arbitrator rejected both arguments, saying “Metalonis appears to be the ultimate salesman, willing to tell whatever puffery he thinks will serve his immediate financial interests.” The trial court ordered him to pay the fee and Metalonis appealed. But the Third District Court of Appeal, in a Nov. 10 decision, upheld the fee award.
On appeal, Metalonis argued the arbitrator exceeded his authority and improperly modified the contingency fee contract by ruling it should be based on the value of the land at the time of settlement, not when it was transferred. The appeals court ruled the arbitrator acted within his authority and dismissed the second claim by pointing to the contract language. It said Boies Schiller was to be paid based upon “the present value of any noncash consideration,” which the appeals court said could be interpreted to mean at the time of settlement.
The appeals court ended its opinion by quoting another Florida court decision: “Everyone supposedly loves arbitration. At least until arbitration goes badly.”
“This appeal is yet another instance of a dissatisfied party attempting to `convert arbitration losses into court victories,’” the court said, cautioning such behavior could discourage people from entering into arbitration agreements.