POLEN, J.

Appellant, Guy Bennett Rubin, P.A. (Rubin), appeals the final judgment of the trial court, granting final summary judgment in favor of appellees and denying partial summary judgment in favor of Rubin in Rubin's action to collect attorney's fees from his former clients. We find the subject Representation Agreement unenforceable as a matter of law, as it violates rule 4-1.5(a), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. As such, we affirm the trial court's order granting final summary judgment in favor of appellees.

The parties entered into a "Business Matter Contingency Fee Representation Agreement" (Agreement) on August 3, 2007. The Agreement provides, in pertinent part:

On September 28, 2007, appellee, Matthew Guettler, by written letter, asked Rubin to dismiss his cases pending in the probate and civil divisions in Martin County. Also, on September 28, Guettler voluntarily dismissed the probate case and sent a notice of voluntary dismissal to Rubin. All three appellees discharged Rubin on November 16, 2007.1

On January 25, 2008, Rubin filed a three-count complaint, alleging breach of contract, account stated and quantum meruit. Subsequently, Rubin filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the sole issue of Guettler's liability to Rubin for unpaid fees and costs. Appellees then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that because none of the three contingencies stated in the Agreement occurred, Rubin was not entitled to a fee. The trial court entered an order granting appellees' motion for summary judgment, and denying Rubin's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that:

The court then entered final judgment for appellees, and this appeal followed.

"The standard of review of the entry of summary judgment is de novo." Craven v. TRG-Boynton Beach, Ltd., 925 So.2d 476, 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (citing Everett Painting Co. v. Padula & Wadsworth Constr., Inc., 856 So.2d 1059, 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)). The trial court determined that the discharge clause in the Agreement constitutes a penalty clause in violation of rule 4-1.5, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. Rubin argues that the trial court failed to cite any provision of rule 4-1.5 which prohibits the fee sought or the use of the subject provision in the Agreement and also failed to make any specific findings indicating which of the three forbidden fees under 4-1.5 the Agreement violated. Rubin further argues that, under the facts of this case, the clause was not a penalty because it did not restrict appellees from hiring subsequent counsel because at the time Rubin was discharged, the claims were "irretrievably dead."3 Rubin finally argues that the trial court should have severed the offending language from the Agreement rather than finding the entire Agreement unenforceable.

"An attorney shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal, prohibited, or clearly excessive fee or cost...." Rule 4-1.5(a), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. A termination-of-services clause in a contingency-fee agreement, which provides for the client to pay the discharged law firm for all services rendered up through the date of termination at the prevailing hourly rate for firm members, if the client abandons or dismisses the claim, violates rule 4-1.5 on its face. The Fla. Bar v. Hollander, 607 So.2d 412, 414 (Fla.1992). "A bilateral contract is severable where the illegal portion of the contract does not go to its essence and, where, with the illegal portion eliminated, there still remain valid legal promises on one side which are wholly supported by valid legal promises on the other." Gold, Vann & White, P.A. v. Friedenstab, 831 So.2d 692, 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing Slusher v. Greenfield, 488 So.2d 579, 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)). Likewise, contingent-fee agreements can be enforceable even if they have technical or immaterial violations of rule 4-1.5(d).4 State Contracting & Eng'g Corp. v. Condotte Am., Inc., 368 F.Supp.2d 1296, 1305 (S.D.Fla.2005). Cf. Lackey v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 855 So.2d 1186, 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (finding that the inclusion of infirm clauses in the contract did not render the agreement void or foreclose the attorney from recovering his fee because the offending clauses were not at issue: "this is not a case where an attorney is seeking to recover fees under a void provision in a contingent fee agreement.").

In The Florida Bar v. Doe, 550 So.2d 1111 (Fla.1989), the contingency-fee contract included a "discharge clause" which permitted the client to discharge Doe only after paying him the greater of $350 per hour for all the time spent on the case or forty percent of the greatest gross amount offered in settlement. At the disciplinary hearing, the referee found that while the contingent fee contract violated rule 4-1.5 on its face, there was no testimony offered that Doe's actions were ever in violation of the rules; consequently, the referee found that Doe was not guilty of any ethical violation warranting disciplinary proceedings. Id. at 1112. However, on review, the supreme court disagreed because "the contract itself shows an ethical violation." Id. The court found that the discharge provision had the effect of intimidating the client into not exercising her right of discharge and penalized the client for exercising this right. Id. at 1113. The court concluded that "[a]n attorney cannot exact a penalty for a right of discharge. To do so is contrary to our statement of policy in Rosenberg ...." Id. See also The Fla. Bar v. Spann, 682 So.2d 1070, 1072-73 (Fla. 1996) (finding that a contingency-fee agreement that provided for payment based on a specified hourly rate upon termination by the client constitutes a penalty clause in violation of rule 4-1.5 because the client would be forced to pay the attorney upon discharge even where the contingency had never been met).

Here, Rubin never argued below (in his motions for, or in opposition to, summary judgment, or at the hearing on said motions) that the trial court should sever the offending language relating to the discharge clause; as such, Rubin has not preserved his severance argument for review. Therefore, we hold that based on rule 4-1.5, Hollander, and Doe, the trial court correctly held the Agreement unenforceable as a matter of law because a discharge clause of this type has been consistently held by the supreme court to be contrary to public policy because of the potential it has for chilling a client's right to change counsel. The case law clearly holds that it is a prohibited fee agreement. Further, here, and in contrast to Lackey, the discharge clause went to the essence of the agreement: Rubin is seeking fees under this exact clause. Thus, the Agreement was unenforceable from its inception.

Rubin next argues that the trial court erred in applying Rosenberg to the facts of this case because Rosenberg does not apply to completed contracts, whether contingent, fixed fee, or mixed. Rubin asserts that by the time he was discharged, the matters which were the subject of the fee contract were already concluded—that the result of the dismissal filing by appellees concluded the Agreement, making impossible any chance that a recovery could ever occur. We need not reach the merits of this issue because the trial court properly found the Agreement to be in violation of rule 4-1.5, and thus unenforceable.

Even if the Agreement is unenforceable as a matter of law, Rubin argues that he should have been permitted to proceed on the theory of quantum meruit as pled in Count III of his complaint. "A Florida Bar member who has entered into an improper fee agreement is nonetheless entitled to receive the reasonable value of his or her services on the equitable basis of quantum meruit." Patterson v. Law Office of Lauri J. Goldstein, P.A., 980 So.2d 1234, 1236, n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Chandris, S.A. v. Yanakakis, 668 So.2d 180, 186, n. 4 (Fla.1995)). However, an action for quantum meruit "arises only upon the successful occurrence of the contingency. If the client fails in his recovery, the discharged attorney will similarly fail and recover nothing." Rosenberg, 409 So.2d at 1022. Here, the trial court found that there was no evidence that the plaintiffs received anything as a result of the litigation. Instead, the Guettlers dismissed their claims against the estate and recovered nothing. Therefore, because the contingency did not occur, Rubin is not entitled to any quantum meruit recovery.

Finally, Rubin argues that he is entitled to reimbursement for costs; however, Rubin never raised this issue below. Consequently, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review.

Affirmed.

WARNER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.