Herb Stettin to Russ Adler: You Now Work For Me!

I recently had the great pleasure of rewatching Jimmy Caan's best film, Thief, where he plays a Chicago freelance diamond thief dreaming of a better life who gets sucked into working for a local mob kingpin for what Caan thinks is one final heist.

Of course the mobster, brilliantly played by Robert Prosky, has other, longer term plans for the profitable crook.

Naturally we are in a very different context, yet for whatever reason I'm reminded of this superb story line when I read the curious settlement terms reached by receiver Herb Stettin and Russ Adler in the Rothstein bankruptcy, which involves Russ handing over a portion of his settlements or judgments should he be successful in future cases:

The settlement stipulates Adler will pay off the settlement by liquidating a $90,000 IRA and by providing liens on any attorney fee recoveries. The lien is 50 percent on lawsuits Adler prosecuted while at RRA and 15 percent afterward.

So now they're in business together?  And Russ is now working to pay off the settlement by trying to settle cases he either has in the hopper or may one day have in the hopper.

This is allegedly due to his current financial situation:

Critical to determining settlement was a detailed analysis of the Adlers’ current financial condition, which based upon mediation related financial disclosures revealed that the Adlers have no existing bank, securities or other accounts upon which to execute, no equity in their home, leased vehicles and no other liquid non-exempt assets that could be used to satisfy any potential judgment. Further, it appears as if the Adlers may be subject to an IRS notice of lien or other action in an approximate amount of $234,000 and Mr. Adler could be facing other types of exposure in potential Florida Bar or criminal proceedings. Thus, the Trustee could have spent a significant amount of money to prepare for and conduct a lengthy trial which he believes would have resulted in a favorable jury verdict, but the likelihood of a successful collection on any such judgment would have proven difficult.

So who's the winner here -- is this a brilliant move by Adler, a smart move by the trustee, or something else entirely?

SFL Friday -- Russ Adler Deposition Follies!

The Intrepid One™  reports on Russ Adler's deposition, which went off about as smoothly as everything else in Rothstein-world:

Lichtman and Adler’s lawyer, Fred Haddad of Fort Lauderdale, stood and yelled at each other several times in the highly charged session. After Lichtman sarcastically questioned Adler’s assertions that he was a “premiere” lawyer in Broward County, Haddad threatened to have Adler leave the deposition if Lichtman did not treat Adler with respect. Later, Lichtman threatened to stop the deposition and get a protective order to force Adler to answer his questions.

“You’ve been argumentative with me all day,” Lichtman said. “I don’t want your speeches.”

 This may be my favorite part (by Jon Burstein in the Sun-Sentinel):

At times, Adler lashed out at Lichtman, accusing him of trying to trap him with "memory games" and telling the bankruptcy attorney: "I don't trust you. I don't believe you."

Adding a side element to the deposition was Adler's wife, Katie Adler, who repeatedly spoke up, much to the chagrin of Adler's attorney, Fred Haddad, who threatened to kick her out of the room.

Katie, I appreciate the sentiment, but let your man handle this, ok?

In other news eat lots of salt, charm may not be a positive personality trait, and it's always mind over matter.

I'm cutting out of downtown early as I understand they may be something happening here later, so happy windsurfing to all and have a great weekend!

DBR Takes A Look At Caperton Disqualification Issues

This is an interesting look by Jordana Mishory on the impact of the recent Supreme Court ruling on judicial disqualification and how it may play out in Florida judicial elections:

Campaign watchers say the state’s $500 cap on judicial campaign contributions means it’s next to impossible to buy the type of influence alleged in the U.S. Supreme Court case, which examined the impact of $3 million coming from a single source.

Further, my buddy Chuck Lichtman (who did great work during the Presidential election) says the same thing:

“When you consider that an average Broward judge race costs anywhere between $75,000 and $150,000, and the state limits [donor] check amounts at $500 per judge, there’s no real applicability for the real world,” said Chuck Lichtman, a Berger Singerman partner and the Florida Democratic Party’s lead counsel in the 2008 election.

I think the $500 cap misses the point of the ruling, to some degree. In West Virginia there was a statutory cap of $1000, so in that sense our states are similar.

But what Don Blankenship did, as the article notes, is bypass the statutory contribution cap by forming his own 527 which poured $2.5 million in direct advertising to criticize the opponent of the candidate he was supporting.

What would prevent the same thing from happening in Florida?

Chuck also thinks it would be too random in terms of influencing our judges:

Lichtman said donors are unable to predict which judge could hear a case based on random case assignments.

“In Florida, there’s a terrific set of rules in place that provides for protection,” Lichtman said. “I don’t see it being a big deal in Florida.”

That's true, but remember Blankenship was also taking a shot in that there are five members of the West Virginia Supreme Court, so it was not a certainty that Blankenship's choice would make the three-judge panel selected for his case.

Still, given that our appellate courts are appointed rather than elected, I do think the possibilities of such massive infusion of cash from a single source to influence a judicial election are unlikely.

We'll continue to do it the old-fashioned way -- hiring power brokers and bundlers to help amass large campaign chests.

That system works great, right?

Lawyers Worry About the Silliest Things!

Oh lawyers, always worrying about whether the id. is capitalized and other such picayune matters. Belts and suspenders, dotting i's and crossing t's and all that.

But get this: apparently some of you are concerned that the election in November may not go off perfectly. In Florida, of all places! So much so that Berger Singerman attorney Charles Lichtman has assembled his own private army of perfectly coiffed legal first-responders:

The Obama campaign has 1,000 volunteer lawyers in Florida, in 55 of the 67 counties, said Chuck Lichtman, statewide lead counsel for the Obama campaign. Five thousand are expected to be signed up by Election Day for poll-watching.

In previous Florida elections, there have been reports of people having to wait in line for hours, of voting machines registering the wrong vote and of people being turned away from the polls for not having two forms of identification or for incorrectly being listed as felons.

"We're not hiring litigators," said Lichtman, a partner at Berger Singerman in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. "The public doesn't want litigation. We're doing election protection. We know election law backwards and forwards and we've been looking at every issue, hard, for the last year."

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee have also sent 11 out-of-state lawyers to Florida to monitor voting problems. Leading them is David Sullivan, who took a leave of absence from his job as legal counsel for the Massachusetts governor. He has been stationed at Obama Florida headquarters in Tampa since Aug. 11. Sullivan was dispatched to Florida in 2000 and Ohio — another battleground state — in 2004. "Our mission is to protect the vote," he said.

Also leading up the efforts in Florida are Stephen and Richard Rosenthal, two brothers who are Miami lawyers — one at the law firm Podhurst Orseck and the other leading his own appellate law firm.

Additionally, Mark Herron, a Tallahassee, Fla., election law expert, has been hired as state counsel for the Democratic National Committee. Herron — who was featured in the HBO film Recount — gained some notoriety in 2000 after his law firm, Akerman Senterfitt, fired him, allegedly for associating himself with Al Gore.

Fellas, fellas - turn that frown upside down!

What could possibly go wrong?