MIAMI – A Miami law firm wants a lawsuit filed against it for breach of contract moved from a Florida state court to federal court.
Defendant Cole Scott & Kissane PA – which claims to be Florida’s largest full-service civil litigation firm with the most defense attorneys in the state – filed its removal notice February 16 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division.
CSK argues the lawsuit filed against it by plaintiff Gretchen Hentsch-Cowles, a Texas resident, doesn’t belong in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County.
The firm, in its six-page notice, contends the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. It points to the basis of Hentsch-Cowles’ complaint: four promissory notes amounting to $479,383.53.
Hentsch-Cowles, in her Jan. 21 filing with the state court, alleges breach of contract, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and disgorgement, and unjust enrichment.
According to her seven-page complaint, she retained CSK to represent her in complex federal litigation pending the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
CSK drafted and required her to execute an amended engagement agreement dated Oct. 24, 2024. The agreement imposed guaranteed hourly fees at elevated rates and expressly contemplated that CSK’s fees, both existing and future, would be secured through commercially standard promissory notes.
As such, Hentsch-Cowles executed multiple promissory notes.
On Oct. 30, 2025, she and the other parties to federal litigation executed a written settlement agreement resolving the case. The agreement expressly requires that settlement proceeds be paid directly to Hentsch-Cowles, without any authorization for payment to CSK or to any attorney trust account.
“Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, CSK gave their wiring details to the settling parties immediately after the settlement agreement was signed without Plaintiff’s knowledge or authorization,” her complaint states. “The Settlement Agreement contains no carve-out, escrow provision, or lien authorization permitting CSK to intercept, withhold, or redirect Plaintiff’s settlement proceeds.”
After weeks of “persistent inquiry,” CSK disclosed it had provided its own trust account wiring instructions, not Hentsch-Cowles’, to the settling parties.
“Plaintiff immediately objected in writing, stating that she never authorized settlement funds to be sent to CSK, CSK acted unilaterally and without authority, and its conduct was unethical and contrary to the parties’ agreements,” her complaint states.
Despite this objection, CSK continued to hold and assert control over a “substantial” portion of Hentsch-Cowles’ settlement proceeds, she alleges.
“CSK’s actions constitute a repudiation of the contracts it drafted and required Plaintiff to sign, and an unlawful attempt to force early payment of fees that are not yet due,” Hentsch-Cowles’ lawsuit states.
Hentsch-Cowles seeks a declaration that CSK has no present right to her settlement funds; order “immediate” disgorgement and return of all settlement funds held by CSK; enjoin CSK from further interference with her funds; and award her damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
CSK is representing itself in the action; The Gibson Law Firm PA in Jacksonville is representing Hentsch-Cowles.
