How to Challenge Excessive Probate Attorney Fees

Probate Attorney Fees in Florida: Who Must Prove They Are Reasonable?

When a Florida estate is charged large legal bills, who decides whether those probate attorney fees are reasonable — and who has to prove it? In Faulkner v. Woodruff, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal answered clearly: the probate court has authority to review the reasonableness of probate attorney fees, and the attorneys who charged them — not the estate or its personal representative — carry the burden of proving those fees were fair. The decision matters for every personal representative and beneficiary who suspects an estate is being overcharged.

The Facts

Gary T. Faulkner served as the personal representative of the Estate of Katherine L. Faulkner and retained attorneys to help administer it. The estate was modest — roughly $4,594 in personal property and a home that sold for $150,000. For their work in what was an uncontested, formal administration, the attorneys billed $39,869.24 in legal fees. To the personal representative, that figure looked far too high for the size and simplicity of the estate.

Procedural History

Mr. Faulkner petitioned the probate court to review the attorneys’ compensation under section 733.6175, Florida Statutes, and Florida Probate Rule 5.355. The attorneys moved to dismiss, arguing that the statute required Mr. Faulkner to name himself — in his capacity as personal representative — as a respondent to his own petition. The probate court accepted that argument and dismissed the petition. Mr. Faulkner appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal.

The Issue

Does a Florida probate court have jurisdiction to review the reasonableness of probate attorney fees — and who bears the burden of proving reasonableness — when the fees were paid from non-probate assets, such as the proceeds of the sale of homestead property?

The Holding

Yes. The Second District reversed the dismissal. The probate court possesses jurisdiction to determine whether the attorneys’ compensation is reasonable, and the fact that the fees were paid from a source separate from the estate — here, the sale of homestead property, a non-probate asset — does not divest the probate court of that authority.

The Court’s Reasoning

The court rejected the attorneys’ argument that payment from non-probate homestead proceeds placed the fee dispute beyond the probate court’s reach. Authority to decide whether probate attorney fees are reasonable rests with the probate court — not solely with The Florida Bar — and the source of the payment does not change that. Just as important, the court reaffirmed a fundamental principle of fee litigation: under section 733.6175, the party seeking fees carries the burden of proof. Because the attorneys were the ones seeking to be paid, it was their obligation to establish that the fees they charged were reasonable.

Why Faulkner v. Woodruff Matters

For personal representatives and beneficiaries, this decision is a practical tool. If you believe the probate attorney fees charged against an estate are excessive, you can ask the probate court to review them — and the burden falls on the attorneys to justify their charges, not on the estate to prove the fees were unreasonable. The way the fees were paid, including from homestead or other non-probate assets, does not shield them from review. Anyone administering or inheriting from a Florida estate should keep Faulkner v. Woodruff in mind when legal bills appear out of proportion to the work performed.