herein. 31. With regard to the application of a multiplier, the court must analyze the three factors set forth in Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990): (1) whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel; (2) whether the attor

apply a multiplier of 2.0 to 2.5. Accordingly, our Rowe decision is modified to allow a multiplier from 1 to 2.5. Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828, 834 (Fla. 1990). Thus, based upon all ofthe foregoing factors, Defendant Aronberg respectfully submits that a multiplier of 2.0 is a

illing to represent Defendant Aronberg on such terms. 33. With respect to the other factors to be considered in applying a multiplier as set forth in Quanstrom, here Defendant Aronberg was unable to mitigate against non-payment of fees because as a purely taxpayer funded entity, the Office of State Attorney

tated herein. 31. With regard to the application of a multiplier, the court must analyze the three factorssetforthin StandardGuaranty’InsuranceCo. v. Quanstrom ,55 5So.2d828(F la. 1990): (1) whether the-relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to; obtain competent counsel; (2) whether the attorn