Herman Law Group v. Peter Herman: $414K Jury Award
Table of Contents
Case Background
This lawsuit unfolded in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. The Herman Law Group, P.A. (THLG), a Fort Lauderdale law firm, brought an action against attorney Peter G. Herman, who had previously practiced at the firm. The dispute stemmed from financial and professional disagreements that arose after Herman left the firm in May 2020 to start his own practice, Peter Herman, P.A.
According to THLG’s complaint, the firm had taken Herman in during a difficult period in his career and had provided him with financial support, staff resources, and office expenses while he managed his cases. THLG argued that Herman had promised to repay these expenses and remit fees from his cases to the firm but failed to honor those commitments after his departure. Herman, on the other hand, denied those claims and filed a counterclaim accusing the firm of withholding his rightful fees from several major cases.
The dispute eventually went to trial, where a jury had to determine which side had breached agreements and who was owed compensation for legal fees and case proceeds.
Cause
The case centered on allegations of breach of contract and financial disputes over contingency case proceeds. THLG claimed that Herman had promised to reimburse the firm for expenses it had paid on his behalf and to remit 100 percent of fees from his contingency cases, including several major ones such as Oak Forest, Flip Face, Sinlab, Automated Creel, and Smith.
THLG alleged that it had advanced substantial funds to cover Herman’s professional and personal expenses between 2016 and 2020. It claimed Herman had later refused to reimburse those amounts or turn over his share of fees once those cases concluded. The firm accused him of unjust enrichment and fraudulent inducement, arguing that he had made false promises to secure the firm’s financial backing without intending to repay it.
Herman responded with his own counterclaims, arguing that THLG had breached an implied contract and wrongfully withheld his earned fees. He maintained that the firm was only entitled to reasonable office expenses, not the fees from his clients’ cases, and that it had kept money belonging to him and his professional association.
Injury
For THLG, the claimed injury was financial money allegedly advanced and never repaid. The firm argued that Herman’s failure to return funds caused significant losses, including cash advances, overhead expenses, and case costs.
Herman’s claimed injuries were also financial. He asserted that THLG had kept his legal fees from several completed cases and from funds held in trust, including settlements from the Flip Face and Farkas matters. He also claimed that the firm failed to return money belonging to him and his practice from its general accounts.
Damages Sought
THLG’s complaint sought monetary damages exceeding $30,000, as well as attorney’s fees, interest, and costs. The firm requested compensation for all funds it had advanced for Herman’s benefit and for the loss of use of those funds.
Herman’s counterclaim sought recovery of his retained fees and reimbursement for the firm’s failure to release money from trust accounts. He also requested damages for breach of contract and equitable claims, including quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, asserting that THLG had been paid for his work but failed to compensate him.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: The Herman Law Group, P.A.
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Bruce K. Herman, Esq.
Defendant: Peter G. Herman, individually and on behalf of Peter Herman, P.A.
· Counsel for Defendant: Peter G. Herman, Esq.
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Plaintiff’s Claims
THLG brought five counts against Herman: breach of implied-in-fact contract, breach of implied-in-law contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and fraudulent inducement. The firm contended that Herman had made false promises to obtain financial support, misused firm resources, and then refused to pay back the firm or release fee proceeds.
Defendant’s Counterclaims
Herman filed a detailed counterclaim asserting breach of implied contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment. He alleged that THLG had withheld his attorney’s fees, including funds from multiple client matters such as Flip Face and Farkas. He also accused the firm of failing to provide accounting records and wrongfully keeping his earnings.
Defense
In his answer, Herman denied all allegations of wrongdoing and raised several affirmative defenses. He argued that THLG’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds, that there had been no meeting of the minds, and that the alleged contract was unconscionable. He also contended that the firm’s claims were inflated, unsupported by documentation, and based on personal animosity rather than facts.
Herman’s filings accused Bruce Herman of mismanaging estate funds and using them to pay firm expenses, asserting that THLG came to Court with “unclean hands.” He maintained that his obligation extended only to ordinary office expenses and that the firm’s attempt to seize his contingency fees was unlawful.
Jury Verdict
The Jury Verdict for the case the Herman Law Group, P.A. V. Peter G. Herman and the Interpleader Action by Peter Herman P.A. V. The Herman Law Group, P.A., returned on August 12th, 2025, determined the total amount of damages suffered by Peter Herman P.A. or Peter G. Herman collectively across several specified legal matters was $414,043.52. This total was reached by combining the individual damage findings for three distinct areas of the dispute: $196,875.00 for the Flipface matter, $137,500.00 for the Farkas matter, and $79,668.52 (calculated as the sum of $61,424.50 and $18,244.02) for the remaining collective matters including Crackel, R. Dwyer, M. Dwyer, Hage, Hollywood Beach, D. Scott, and Yeary.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com