Reading time: 5 minutes
Cases: Ruffenach v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co
Decided: March 20, 2026

The Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled that parties are not required to retain experts nor is the court required to conduct evidentiary hearings for purposes of establishing the amount of an attorney’s fee award. Ruffenach v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 2186 * | 2026 LX 142683 (Fla. 6^th DCA Mar. 20, 2026). The Sixth District started its lengthy opinion by stating: 

“For more than sixty years, all of our sister courts have held that a trial court cannot enter an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to a statute, rule, or contractual provision providing for an award of attorneys' fees without first conducting an evidentiary hearing and receiving testimony from an expert witness regarding the reasonableness of the fees. With the deepest respect to our sister courts, we believe they were wrong in imposing both of these requirements. No statute or rule imposes these requirements. The Florida Supreme Court has never held that either of these requirements must be satisfied for a trial court to award attorneys' fees. The federal courts do not require an evidentiary hearing or expert testimony as a prerequisite to an award of attorneys' fees. There is simply no legal authority mandating either of these requirements, nor is there strong logic or policy grounds for imposing them.”

The Sixth District’s opinion provides a lengthy examination of the precedent that mandated the use of experts and evidentiary hearings for purposes of determining the amount of attorney’s fees that can be awarded. Noting that the Florida Supreme Court had never imposed either of these requirements and that no rule or statute required them, the Sixth District has concluded that neither are mandatory. However, they clarified that expert testimony may be needed when there is a question of whether a multiplier should be applied. 

The consequence of this decision is not likely to impact either the hourly rate or the number of hours that are awarded when a party is obligated to pay its opponent’s fees. The Sixth District simply recognized that the trial court can sift through the biases and self-interest of the attorney who testifies in support of his own rates and hours and does not need another attorney’s testimony to make a determination on what is reasonable. However, this decision will save the parties tens of thousands of dollars in litigating the amount of fees because they will no longer be required to pay experts or incur the cost of an evidentiary hearing. 

The Sixth District ended their opinion by stating: 

“Sixty-two years ago, the Second District invented a requirement for trial courts to receive expert testimony before granting an award of attorneys' fees. All of our sister courts adopted the requirement without sufficient scrutiny as to its validity, and it led them to also require evidentiary hearings where none should have been required. There was never any legal basis for the expert testimony requirement, or the requirement for universal evidentiary hearings to which it led, and these judicially invented requirements have caused the misspent expenditure of hundreds of thousands if not millions of hours of time by attorneys and judges across our state since their wrongful inception. It is long overdue for these errors to be corrected, and we do so today. “

The Sixth District’s ruling is only binding on courts within the following ten counties:

• Charlotte County
• Collier County
• Glades County
• Hardee County
• Hendry County
• Highlands County
• Lee County
• Orange County
• Osceola County
• Polk County

In all other counties, the existing precedent requiring experts and evidentiary hearings remain in force. However, the parties could try to avoid that and see if the trial court will set the issue up for a review in the other DCAs.

Key Takeaways

• Elimination of Mandatory Experts: Parties in the Sixth DCA are no longer required to retain expert witnesses or hold evidentiary hearings to establish the amount of an attorney’s fee award.

• Judicial Authority: The Court affirmed that trial judges possess the necessary expertise to determine reasonable hourly rates and hours without outside testimony.

• Significant Cost Savings: This ruling is expected to save clients tens of thousands of dollars by removing the need for expert fees and the costs associated with protracted hearings.

• Limited Jurisdiction: This decision currently applies only to the ten counties within the Florida Sixth DCA; traditional expert requirements remain in effect for all other Florida counties.

Update from:

• Dorothy DiFiore, Tampa Partner

This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with an attorney to discuss your specific legal situation.