Business Court -- Yay or Nay?

With Judge Freeman passing the complex business litigation torch to Judges Bailey and Rodriguez, the question inevitably arises:

Is the darn thing any good?

In the Yay column stands my pal Mike Higer, (I'm pretty sure that's him above) who says they are making some changes in 2012 to better improve how the courts operate, but in general they are working well:

"Business courts have accomplished exactly what the lawyers in the business community wanted to see occur," says Higer — "to get a judge whose more proficient and efficient in handling business disputes." 

Not everyone agrees:

Lawyers say several factors have left room for improvement, however. "There’s a perception that cases were moving too slowly and decisions were taking longer than hoped to get decided," says Jim Murphy, an attorney with Shook Hardy & Bacon in Tampa. Murphy says much of the problem has stemmed from funding issues — the business courts, he says, didn’t get the kind of support staff and other help to enable them to work through cases more quickly. "These are complicated cases that require research and active case managing, and the resources we initially had envisioned were not there," he says. "I think the caseloads were more than anticipated." 

My own take is I love the concept, but the execution needs work.

Judge Freeman of course is the best, but the procedural rules are clunky and sometimes favor form over function.

Still, it beats waiting behind several thousand foreclosure proceedings in order to get two minutes with the Judge.


What say you?

Our Long National Rosh Hashanah Nightmare is Over!

Way back in September we did a wee little post about Gene Stearns getting sanctioned by Judge Freeman for refusing to move a deposition scheduled for Rosh Hashanah, which got picked up by AboveTheLaw.

We followed that post with Gene's motion for reconsideration, which provided some context for what the parties were arguing about, and in the comments I even offered a solution.

Well Judge Greeman has granted the motion for reconsideration, which you can read here.

Well done!

(The Judge still would have required the deposition to be moved to another day.)

Of course I found this part interesting:

Shortly after this Court's order awarding sanctions was ordered, a story appeared in two blogs widely read by practicing attorneys both locally and nationally (ed. note -- thanks Judge!), interpreting the behavior of Plaintiff's counsel -- and this Court's apparent condemnation of it -- in a manner that grossly distorts the truth and reflects both badly and unfairly on the legal system in general and Plaintiff's counsel in particular.   Plaintiff's counsel says about the blog postings that it is difficult to say which was worse, being falsely described as anti-Semitic or being falsely supported for being anti-Semitic.  The Court is sympathetic to that view.

Hold on, Judge -- if you look at our two postings we tried to play it pretty fair and even posted Gene's motion for reconsideration in full.  And we don't let commenters go crazy like they do on ATL (or the Herald, for that matter).

Still, it's nice to be loved.

Gene Stearns Moves to Reconsider Rosh Hashanah Sanctions Motion!

Our post yesterday on Judge Freeman's sanctioning of Stearns Weaver for refusing to move a deposition scheduled for Rosh Hashanah was picked up by ATL (thanks Staci!).

Now Gene Stearns is back before Judge Freeman, asking her to reconsider baby:

The Court should reconsider and vacate the portion of its September 27,2011 Order Granting Dupont's Motion for Protective Order, to the extent that it awards attomeys' fees against Plaintiffs' counsel, without permitting Plaintiffls counsel to explain the circumstances that led to its position. In his entire career, Plaintiff's counsel has never been sanctioned. A finding of sanctions here, without even hearing Plaintiff s explanation of the circumstances, is not consistent with Florida law.

Read it and decide for yourself. 

If the judge grants this someone please let me know.

L'Shana Tova, Plebes!

To my many fellow Jewish brethren, you now have two weeks to undo everything you did wrong last year -- better hurry!

All kidding aside, thank you readers, tipsters and commenters for making this occasionally fun and every now and again even mildly informative.

If I offended any of you it certainly was not intended and I do sincerely apologize.

And if you can't make it to shul tonight but you must have your Shofar fix -- of course there's an app for that!

Who's cutting out of temple early tomorrow with me to go see Bryan Ferry?

Oy with the Jews.

UPDATE -- What kind of lawyer insists on a deposition going forward on Rosh Hashanah?

Check out this motion, which Judge Freeman just granted, imposing sanctions to boot.

The book stays open only two weeks folks!

Leesfield Appeals Judge Freeman's Arbitration Order

Notice of Appeal

I guess somebody was unhappy with Judge Freeman's order denying arbitration and allowing preliminary discovery to proceed.

Briefing on this should be interesting.

BTW, my read of Rule 9.130(f) is that a stay pending appeal is discretionary and discovery could therefore proceed in accordance with Judge Freeman's order.

Play nice, kids!

Leighton v. Leesfield, Round Two!

ORDER Denying Def Mot to Arbitrate

Anyone remember the messy legal divorce of longtime partners John Elliott Leighton and Ira Leesfield?

Well Judge Gill Freeman just entered an order denying Ira's motion to have all matters sent to arbitration.

At issue in this case is both a 1994 Employment Agreement, which has an arbitration provision, and a 2005 Shareholder Agreement, which apparently does not.

For whatever reason both appear to govern the parties' business relationship, but they are separate and distinct and not "inextricably intertwined."

Makes perfect sense, right?

Thus, Ira can't withhold the $250k apparently due to John under the Shareholder Agreement as a "set off" against what he claims are "challenged amounts" under the Employment Agreement.

Oy!

Also, while the Employment Agreement is subject to mandatory and binding arbitration (which appears to be ongoing), but the Shareholder Agreement is not, Judge Freeman decided to order concurrent non-binding arbitration of the Shareholder Agreement before the same arbitrators who are considering the Employment Agreement.

Got that?

(Folks, there's a reason why we litigators refer out our transactional work.)