Hank Adorno "Not A Class Action Lawyer."

So says Hank's lawyer Andy Berman at the ongoing sanctions hearing, as reported by the always excellent Julie Kay.

Question: then why was Hank handling a major public-interest class action?

Also, can someone explain to me the purpose of calling "character" witnesses such as Raoul Cantero and Sandy Bohrer?

Generalized evidence from other lawyers about the reputation of another lawyer seems to be totally irrelevant to determining specific questions of legal or ethical violations.

Plus it's inherently unreliable.

I mean, isn't that obvious by now?

I'm not suggesting any parity at all in this example, but imagine a year ago and the issue on the table was the "reputation" or "character" of our own major macher Scott Rothstein.

You had seventy lawyers, judges, etc. who worked for him, numerous politicians, sports stars, jewelers, businessmen, charities and others who vouched for his character, he was appointed to JNC and grievance committees etc., and you could have probably lined up 100 prominent and well-respected lawyers who would have extolled Scott's virtues to the heavens.

And this means what?

Or how about this -- a year ago Hank could have called successful and well-respected Broward litigator Scott Rothstein as a character witness.

See what I mean?

Have we learned nothing about the fragile house of cards upon which lawyers can create and sustain reputations in our sunny town?