Did You Know a Few Billionaires Want to Rejigger the Florida Supreme Court?

 If you're in the legal biz it's impossible to not be aware of the Koch brothers' campaign to unseat Justices Lewis, Pariente, and Quince. 

But there's also this bugaboo up for a vote in November:

The GOP-led Florida Legislature also put a state constitutional amendment on the ballot that experts say would politicize the Florida Supreme Court.

Amendment 5 would change the Florida Constitution to say that the Florida Senate has to confirm state Supreme Court nominees. If passed, it would also allow the Florida Legislature to repeal any court decision with only a majority, which is 50 percent plus one. Right now, the legislature needs a supermajority.

Oy veh, do you think Florida would have integrated the public school system if the Legislature could have repealed that ruling with a 50 percent plus one vote?

A few newspapers have also weighed in:

"The three Supreme Court justices up for review are under attack by a conservative political action committee which declines requests for interviews...
That is the kind of politics that merit retention was designed to keep away.
For that reason, we strongly recommend voting "yes'' to retain Justices R. Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince — all of whom passed muster in a Florida Bar poll with approval ratings of at least 89 percent."

– Naples Daily News, 9/26/12

"The three Florida justices are certainly competent. A poll of Florida Bar members showed that 92 percent supported retaining Mr. Lewis, 89 percent Ms. Pariente and 90 percent Ms. Quince. And there’s no question of ethical impropriety.
Rather, it’s pure politics.
Let’s hope voters understand what’s at stake here. Let’s hope they vote to retain the three Supreme Court justices.”

– Tallahassee Democrat, 09/25/12

Where did all the Jeb Bush Republicans go?

(I'm excluding Raoul Cantero's leadership on this issue -- major props to the guy for taking this on!)

Ha Ha -- Florida Can't Have Its Own Foreign Policy!

You know that red-meat "law" that Rick Scott (pictured above) signed, barring companies from bidding on state or local contracts if they have ties to Cuba?

Well you may have heard that Judge Moore found it only violated a slew of major constitutional provisions:  the Supremacy Clause, the Foreign Affairs Power, the Foreign Commerce Clause, plus it is inoperative on its own terms.

On the other hand, Judge Moore found that the law did not in fact violate the prohibition against quartering troops in private homes!

So sort of a split decision.

Nice win for Raoul Cantero and James Moye out of Maitland.

You can read the preliminary injunction order here.

Now let's get back to other important election year legislation, like banning Sharia law (a personal favorite).

FSC Issues Important First-Party Bad Faith Decision!

The Supreme Rulers of Tally have issued a very interesting opinion on bad faith actions in the first-party insurance context, with a lengthy and well-written history of the doctrine and its development in Florida.

The Court finds that there is no independent cause of action for breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing outside the statutory framework:

Specifically, we conclude that under Florida law (1) first-party claims are actually statutory bad-faith claims that must be brought under section 624.155 of the Florida Statutes; (2) an insured cannot bring a claim against an insurer for failure to comply with the language and type-size requirements established by section 627.701(4)(a) of the Florida Statutes; (3) an insurer‟s failure to comply with the language and type-size requirements established in section 627.701(4)(a) does not render a noncompliant hurricane deductible provision in an insurance policy void and unenforceable as the Legislature has not provided for this penalty; and (4) a contractual provision mandating payment of benefits upon “entry of a final judgment” does not waive the insurer‟s procedural right to post a bond and stay the execution of a money judgment pending resolution of appeal.

Congrats Raoul!

Marc Caputo: Both Sides Now.

Certainly one of the most frequently voiced criticisms of the mainstream media is the use or overuse of false equivalencies -- the notion that "both sides do it" in exactly the same amount, in exactly the same way, there is no difference between the two sides, and therefore we the mainstream media are perfectly balanced in repeatedly noting this enduring political reality.

And let me get my "to be sure" paragraph out front about Marc Caputo -- he's a very good reporter, exceptional perhaps (clearly for the Herald), and that's why it's distressing to see Marc's recent trend of looking around and finding the exact same thing on both sides of the aisle.

Here's Marc today finding both sides to be in exact equipose regarding Trayvon Martin.

Here's Marc last month finding exact equipose between Marco Rubio birthers and Obama birthers.

Marc, enough!  Get back to your good, solid reporting.

Question -- is everything always binary?  Maybe there are more than two sides?  Are the two sides always exactly the same?  On some issues could one side be worse than the other?

Ok, actual legal news -- the Florida Senate has hired our own Raoul Cantero (at $695 an hour) to lead the charge on a second bite at redistricting.

Check out the retainer agreement here.

And no, I'm not commenting on the tribe suit -- the complaint seems like a cheap shot to me.

Seriously, who gives a holy hail about somebody's clocks?

Please God, No.

This is so mind-numbingly stupid it pains me to excerpt it:

A measure to ban the use of foreign laws in domestic courtrooms is progressing in Florida's statehouse, one of dozens of similar efforts across the country that critics call an unwarranted campaign driven by fear of Muslims.
Forty such bills are being pursued in 24 states, according to a tally by the National Conference of State Legislatures, a movement opponents call a response to a made-up threat of Shariah law, the Islamic legal code that covers many areas of life. Backers of the bills say they fill a glaring hole in legal protections for Americans.

"There have been all sorts of wild accusations about what this bill does," said Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, who sponsored the Senate bill in Florida. "This is very clear, very simple: In American courts we need American laws and no other."

The Florida measure passed the House on Thursday 92-24. It awaits a full vote in the Senate.

If passed, Florida would join three other states — Louisiana, Arizona and Tennessee — in approving legislation curtailing the use of foreign laws.

 "American laws"?

Yeah, like the Magna Carta, or better yet -- the Bible (wasn't Charlton Heston a Real American when he brought down those ten laws?).

I think the basic problem is that the "Sharia law" controversy doesn't really exist -- I know of no trend where federal or state courts are deferring to Muslim law in derogation of operative state or federal law.

Like voter fraud and Newt Gingrich, it's basically a scare tactic:

If Sharia opponents can’t name a single instance of Islamic law being used in the state courts, what exactly is the point of banning it — beyond vague and unsubstantiated fears?
On the other hand, there isn’t exactly a compelling counter-argument in favor of Sharia law. The U.S. courts should avoid applications of religious law in general. And Sharia has a particularly horrific reputation, since it’s used to justify the state-sanctioned oppression of women, the silencing of journalists and human rights workers, religious persecution, and vicious executions across the Islamic world.

But the good news for Sharia law opponents is that these things are already illegal in the United States, and Sharia is rarely applied to anything in this country beyond executions of wills and personal financing matters. Unless that changes, attempts to “ban” it are based on little more than hysteria and conspiracy theories.

Although it's obvious the FL bill's sponsors are not targeting English common law or the French civil code, in light of this recent 10th Circuit opinion (on Oklahoma's version), up in Tally they are careful to not mention Sharia law specifically by name -- just the usual dog whistles for the well-trained base this bill is intended to satiate.

All of this is yet another compelling argument to retain Justices Pariente, Lewis, and Quince -- and I personally want to commend Raoul Cantero for putting a bipartisan face on the fundraising event Monday, which btw was well-attended with the cream of the crop in South Florida's legal community all supporting their retention.

We will need good strong judges to resist these sorts of nativist impulses.

(RIP Judge Maxine Cohen Lando.)

Florida Supreme Court Weighing Hank Adorno Disbarment.

Did you know Hank Adorno is still a lawyer?

I didn't, but he may not be for long:

The court ordered Adorno to show cause by Nov. 16 why a suspension of up to three years or disbarment should not be imposed.

The Florida Bar had recommended a six-month suspension, but a referee who heard the ethics charges against Adorno recommended only a reprimand, the lightest possible punishment.

Adorno did not respond to a call for comment by deadline.

The court raised the issue of a suspension on its own, according to the two-page order written by Chief Justice Charles Canady.

The court ordered Adorno, the law firm president, to be suspended within 30 days so he can close out his law practice — or immediately if he is no longer practicing. The court also ordered him to accept no new clients, send a copy of the order to all existing clients and courts, stop withdrawing money from trust accounts without court approval and provide a copy of the suspension order to all banks he does business with.

 The Court was apparently not persuaded by the macher boys-club backslappers who rose in Hank's defense:

A parade of South Florida legal heavyweights pleaded on Adorno's behalf. His supporters included former Florida Supreme Court Justice Raoul Cantero, Sanford Bohrer, a partner at Holland & Knight, and Ruden McClosky founding partner Don McClosky.

Hold on a minute -- don't the Supremes know who these people are?

Paris Hilton Allegedly Owes Restitution

Yeah, you read right, restitution:

Investors in Paris Hilton's 2006 box-office bomb "Pledge This!" claim she owes $1 million in restitution for supposedly not promoting the movie enough.

The investors asked a Miami federal judge Thursday to force Hilton to repay her fee from the film. They contend she ignored at least nine requests for interviews and other promotion events in violation of her contract.

If you feel like blowing $2.40, you can read the trial brief on restitution damages here.

BTW, I find it pretty amusing that Raoul Cantero was appointed by Judge Moreno to serve as a mediator in this case (Raoul declared an impasse on March 24th).

The order required both the receiver and Ms. Hilton to personally appear at the mediation.

I can just imagine how things went at the mediation. Luckily, a spy passed along a partial transcript:

Raoul Cantero: Did you know I used to be a Justice on the Florida Supreme Court?

Paris: [to assistant] tell that man with the glasses to shut up.

Raoul Cantero: I also chaired the Florida Supreme Court's Commission on Professionalism.

Paris: [to assistant] Did that person say something?

Raoul Cantero: I make lots of money at White & Case.

Paris: [looks directly at Cantero] That is so hawt!

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?

More Things I Love About Miami

So I saw Judge Seitz and Raoul Cantero chatting briefly at lunch today, no doubt busily dissecting SexyLexus and the various noncomments about the story that appear in Vanessa Blum's excellent front-pager today in the DBR.

What makes me most happy about this story is that you guys have really spiced up the DBR comments section. Consider the one from "Gary" that was posted at 1:45 today -- I sure hope that makes the paper tomorrow!

Meanwhile, signs of the recovery are everywhere -- from the "Transit Service Center" near the Omni to that spiffy new "Parking Cashier" at the James L. Knight -- things sure are shaping up around here.

Raoul Cantero Writes Op-Ed Quoting Positive Comments About Raoul Cantero

Isn't it cool that as we get ready to inaugurate a new President, we get to fight about the 2000 Florida recount and the Bush years all over again?

Thank goodness I don't have to write another post about Frank Jimenez. I tell you, I was thisclose to pulling a Lew Freeman and launching myself from the top of Wachovia like a despondent Rose DeWitt Bukater hoping to escape the loveless clutches of the very dastardly Billy Zane.

No, instead this is about Raoul Cantero.

Also, it is an Op-Ed written by Raoul Cantero:

Six-and-a-half years ago, the Florida Supreme Court Judicial Nominating Commission nominated me to fill a vacancy on the Florida Supreme Court. At the time, I was a lawyer practicing at a medium-sized Miami firm. I had never been a judge. I was the only Hispanic nominated and, if appointed, would be the first justice of Hispanic descent on the court.

The St. Petersburg Times promptly wrote an editorial painting me as a right-wing ideologue. The Times used my representation of an alleged (but twice-acquitted) terrorist to claim that I was "apparent(ly) indifferent to violence that is anti-Castro in motive." The newspaper also used a letter I had written to the Miami Herald editor years earlier, to insinuate that I would grant leniency to some murderers but not others. My letter had condemned the then-recent murders of two abortion doctors. However, I explained that the vast majority of those in the antiabortion movement were decent people from all walks of life who shared a belief that abortions kill children. The Times used that letter to question whether I would affirm the death penalty for the murder of abortion providers.

Of course, the Times' accusations were not well-founded, as subsequent events proved. I will not dwell on my record as a justice. Suffice it to quote one of my colleagues, speaking at my retirement ceremony in September: "His votes on this court have never, ever reflected an agenda either personal or political" and "Justice Cantero is the essence of what we mean by judicial independence."

Cantero does say some other stuff, good stuff actually, about somebody else blah blah blah, but hey I'm trying to dwell on the positive here, ok?