at the conclusion of these proceedings is, at best, speculative and could result in payment of an excessive fee. Such a fee should not be computed on an amount unknown at the present time. We note with approval that the circuit court has reserved jurisdiction to reassess the amount of the appellant’s award when her ultimate recovery becomes known. At that time the true value of her attorneys’ services will be more readily apparent. The nature of her contingency fee contract may properly be weighed in determining the amount of a reasonable fee. It is, however, only one of a number of criteria which should be considered. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Gorgei Enterprises, Inc., 345 So.2d 412 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977); cf. Dade County v. Oolite Rock Company, 311 So.2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (<HOLDING>). Further, it is our opinion that expert
holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees holding that it is proper for a district court to considered sic the possibility that an appeal may result in the award of attorneys fees in determining the appeal bond amount holding that while the nonprevailing partys financial condition is not appropriate to consider in determining whether to award attorneys fees it is appropriate to consider when determining the amount of the attorneys fees holding proper basis for award of fees holding that proper guidelines were not utilized in determining attorneys fees