Your Friday Morning Digital Dump.

Hi kids, are you interested in watching Alvin Davis masticate flagellate lay prostate orate?

(Ok, let's go with the last one.)

You can see the red-glassed Jedi at work -- actually traveling to (ick!) Tallahassee -- to deliver a master class before the Florida Supremes on the various forms of equitable estoppel, promissory included.

And he did it all for Don King!

(Oral argument transcript here, and the well-written briefs are here.)

In other news, the 11th Circuit finds that filing an amended complaint that expands the class definition revives an otherwise waived right to arbitrate; and Judge King is reversed because he excluded plaintiff's expert testimony in a cruise passenger injury case.

Finally, more bad news for the lawyer whose response to Judge Seitz' order to show cause is due today -- apparently David Mandel thinks she may have a conflict of interest and her law firm possibly disqualified.

When it rains it rains.....

Oh hail it's Friday, let's misbehave:

More on Pedro and Ryan's Move to DLA Piper!

Wow, this is pretty cool -- it turns out Bono actually penned an ode to their enduring relationship.

Enjoy!

DLA Piper Opens Miami Office.

Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga's wanderlust continues, along with C. Ryan Reetz.

How best to describe these two, rockin' down the highway from GT to SSD, and now to DLA P?

The Dynamic Duo, Batman and Robin, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, Seals and Crofts, Bert and Ernie.....believe me I could do this all night.

But they're both friends of mine, both tremendous lawyers and they're both going to DLA Piper:

Helping DLA launch in Miami are former Squire Sanders partners Pedro Martinez-Fraga and C. Ryan Reetz, both of whom predominantly advise Latin American clients on international commercial and investment treaty arbitrations. Martinez-Fraga worked at Greenberg Traurig before moving to Squire Sanders, where he has served as head of that firm's international dispute resolution practice in Florida and Latin America, according to The NLJ.

Sonny and Cher, Laurel and Hardy, Steve and Edie, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Laverne and Shirley......this is kinda fun......

Alvin Davis To Officially Adopt English Accent!

I understand he's going for a more acerbic Hugh Grant:

After more than two months of talks, London-based Hammonds agreed to merge with Squire effective Jan. 1, 2011. The new firm will have 1,275 lawyers in 37 offices in 17 countries and become a significant player in the international arena. In the United States, the firm will retain the Squire Sanders & Dempsey name.

In Miami, where Squire has 35 lawyers, few changes are expected, said managing partner Luis Reiter. But he said he expects the global platform to bring in new business for the Miami office, particularly in the area of international dispute resolution.

“I think it’s very exciting,” Reiter said. “It’s a really significant expansion for the firm. For Miami, this is particularly important, because it gives us a more expanded global platform, and our clients will benefit from the additional resources.”

 Reiter added "I might say we're a bit buggered about losing all dental coverage, Benny Hill is quite a good chap, pip pip cheerio and all that rot and bollocks to you!  Bloody 'ell!  Did I say that right?"

When's The Right Time To Raise Rule 11 in A Pleading?

Chile Response

Anyone remember the RICO suits brought by the Republic of Chile against several banks over Pinochet and alleged money-laundering?

This is the one where Pedro Martinez-Fraga got conflicted out and had to hand it over to Bilzin's William Hill.

Well in a recent response to a motion to dismiss filed by one of the banks, there appears this curious paragraph:

We are dismayed that counsel for PNC would raise the earlier sending of a Rule 11 letter to predecessor counsel. That letter was directed at the initial complaint, a pleading that has long since been withdrawn (although it was withdrawn for reasons wholly unrelated to anything in the letter). No subsequent letters have been received and we would not expect to receive one, given the overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing by the bank. We understand that Rule 11 letters are confidential among counsel, and object to counsel raising it to try to gain some sort of litigation advantage here. Further, despite PNC's aggressive rhetoric, one similarly situated bank involved in the Pinochet enterprise has already settled with the Republic of Chile.1 Moreover, one other bank facing similar claims by the Republic of Chile likewise took an aggressive approach and filed a Rule 11 motion. That motion was filed at 5:30 p.m. on September 3, 2009 and denied by the court 20 minutes later, without the need for a response from the Republic of Chile. We expect that, because counsel for these banks are in close communication, the court's off-hand denial of the Rule 11 motion in the other case has counseled Riggs' counsel from making a similar motion. Nonetheless, we categorically deny making any litigation decisions in this case based on the Rule 11 letter, and ask that the Court disregard the reference in this motion.

Hmm, let's see the reference to the Rule 11 letter in the motion to dismiss:

After receiving our motion to dismiss and our strong Rule 11 letter, CDE dismissed everything except its Florida RICO counts and filed a second amended complaint. Unfortunately for CDE, even this latest amendment still cannot save this case from dismissal.

There's also this:

Despite the Local Rule’s clear command, a motion to dismiss [DE 23] and a Rule 11 letter, all squarely notifying CDE that they would be well-advised to specify some act post-March 11, 2004 -- after three long complaints and a 39-page Civil RICO Case Statement, they still have not specified one. As a result, they are time-barred.

The underlying legal issue is whether or not the injury discovery rule -- long applicable to federal RICO claims -- applies to Florida RICO claims as well.

The bank's reply is due January 4.

Judges Still Mastering New "Email" Technology.

I was in a pretty surly mood when I came in this morning, what with the continued news of layoffs and terminations -- just this week we had Foley & Lardner, SSD, and the continued reports of drips and drabs at Akerman.

But like they say about the weather in New England, if you don't like it just wait a while:

Faber, elected in 2006, said in his memo that the old system, which would have ignored Arzola’s years on the county bench, was “demeaning” to Arzola. “As a fellow county court judge, it is demeaning to me,” he said.

Circuit Judge Reemberto Diaz fired off a terse response to Faber’s e-mail.

“Mr. Faber: In the past few weeks, I have received three (3) unsolicited e-mails from you. Let me respond in the order they were received:

1. NO. I don’t know an interior decorator to recommend to you;

2. NO. I don’t want to buy comedy tickets from you;

3. NO. I’m not interested in your misguided opinion about the chief judge’s decision.

This is not Craig’s list nor a blog. Have a good day.”

Why was I not copied on this email?

As a matter of fact, I happen to know several fine interior decorators; I am always up for good live stand-up (who was it, btw?); and I would indeed be very interested in Judge Farber's (or "Mr. Farber," I guess) "misguided opinion" on the Chief Judge's decision, interior decorators, comedy tickets or anything else.

And, for the record, this is in fact a blog.

To sum it up, Susannah A. Nesmith's story today is a must-read, filled with small charms at nearly every turn.

For example, there's this from Judge Cuerto, who is upset that he got passed over for criminal court by Judge Arzola:

“I do not want to bring any negative publicity to our branch of government, which is still held in high regard in the community,” he wrote in the e-mail to all judges in the county.

Ok, I think that's a fair statement, but will all these emails help?

At least someone has a sense of humor -- Judge Pineiro, in a nod to Three Stooges fans everywhere, called for the inevitable:

“Alright, I think it is definitely time to resolve this discussion and bring it to a dignified conclusion — one which will make us proud,” he wrote. “I suggest pies (preferably apple) at 10 paces.”

See, this Judge has both an appreciation of classic comedy and an understanding of the limits of email privacy.

Whichever way the pie crumbles, thanks for turning around my morning!

Oh Hail It's Tuesday.

Hi online addicts!

Welcome to your work week, folks.

Well I hope you all had a restful and peaceful Memorial Day weekend, and at least paused for a moment to honor the many who have sacrificed so much in defense of our country.

Somehow I windsurfed myself all the way out to Elliott Key yesterday, so I apologize for not getting a post up to mark the holiday. And thank you US Coast Guard, I owe you one.

I see everyone is buzzing about Obama's Supreme Court pick. Is it just me or is there something slightly anti-climactic about the selection at this point in the game?

I happen to like the jurisprudence out of the 2d Circuit generally, at least on civil matters. They seem to understand antitrust law, business litigation, and damages issues. Lots of good lawyers litigating the nation's key business disputes in a fair-minded, intelligent forum.

Most of the criticism from the right so far has focused on Judge Sotomayor's PCA on a white firefighter discrimination case -- you can read Ed Whelan's gloom and doom report on the judge's transgressions here.

To me that's a big yawn -- we know appellate courts do this all the time to preclude further appeals when the issues are not properly framed or the case not the right vehicle to adjudicate certain open legal questions. If that's the best they have, she seems like a lock.

Speaking of appellate courts, I found this article pretty interesting:

A few years ago, a second-year law student at Georgetown unlocked the secret to predicting which side would win a case in the Supreme Court based on how the argument went. Her theory has been tested and endorsed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and has been confirmed by elaborate studies from teams of professors.

“The bottom line, as simple as it sounds,” said the student, Sarah Levien Shullman, who is now a litigation associate at a law firm in Florida, “is that the party that gets the most questions is likely to lose.”

Chief Justice Roberts heard about Ms. Shullman’s study while he was a federal appeals court judge, and he decided to test its conclusion for himself. So he picked 14 cases each from the terms that started in October 1980 and October 2003, and he started counting.

“The most-asked-question ‘rule’ predicted the winner — or more accurately, the loser — in 24 of those 28 cases, an 86 percent prediction rate,” he told the Supreme Court Historical Society in 2004.

Judge Roberts had argued 39 cases in the Supreme Court, and he was considered one of the leading appellate advocates of his generation. He sounded both fascinated and a little deflated by the results of his experiment. “The secret to successful advocacy,” he said playfully, “is simply to get the court to ask your opponent more questions.”

This certainly comports with my anecdotal experiences with a "hot" bench. When you walk up to the podium and can barely get your name out before the questions begin, you stand a pretty good chance of losing.

Sarah, btw, is now an associate at SSD in Palm Beach.

Boy, to have your law review article quoted in the Times and by the Chief Justice -- congrats Sarah!

Of course, I thought my hot-button law review article -- analyzing the increasingly flustered and bewildered facial expressions of Harry Morgan's night court judge in Holiday Affair -- would be nearly as influential, but alas time (and Westlaw citations) have not been so kind.

Darn eggheads!

SFL Friday -- Open Up My Heart And Look Inside.

Hi folks, well as usual Rumpy is correct -- today is in fact Friday. But that's good, right?

Maybe it's all that talk earlier about "feminine tannins," but I've been in a romantic mood all day -- I hope you are too.

Boy, you guys never send me enough juicy stuff about local lawyers, law firms, or cases, but you all love to send me links for a Friday afternoon post.

Times are tough, people -- but my friend Mr. Guest Blogger notes that in these trying times there are some stepping up to help -- Victoria's Secret, for one.

And Pfizer, who will be handing out free Viagra to the unemployed:

"Everybody knows now a neighbor, a relative who has lost their job and is losing their insurance. People are definitely hurting out there," Dr. Jorge Puente, Pfizer's head of pharmaceuticals, told The Associated Press.

"Our aim is to help people bridge this point."

As Eric Idle might put it, nudge nudge, say no more!

Did you see that four Miami Chrysler dealerships are scheduled to close?

Not so fast -- they have hired SSD:

A legal showdown is about to begin between the nearly 800 Chrysler dealers that were ordered shut down on May 14 and the Big Three auto giant that ordered the closures.

In a court filing, Chrysler Corp. asked U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez to reject dealer agreements for 789 dealers nationwide — roughly 25% of its 3,200 dealers — in a effort "to conserve cash and pursue transactions that maximize value." The dealerships, which are set to close June 9, have until May 26 to appeal the motion. A hearing is set for June 3.

The announcement, meanwhile, revved up Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, which is representing a coalition of rejected dealers and has scheduled a meeting with President Barack Obama's auto task force next week to ask for federal intervention, including financial assistance. The law firm claims that the closures are unlawful and that roughly 100,000 employees stand to lose their jobs. It vows to litigate if franchise rights are ignored.

"Our hope is to resolve this without the need for extensive litigation to make sure that dealers are not disproportionately injured. However, we are fully prepared, as early as next week, to begin the litigation process because we can't sit idly by and have these dealers' lives ruined without the opportunity to raise the issues with the bankruptcy court in New York," said Stephen D. Lerner, a partner in the Cincinnati and New York offices of Squire Sanders who is representing the dealerships.

Good luck guys, but make sure you clear conflicts first!

And this is a shocker -- turns out the Administration approved torture techniques long before Judge Bybee authored that ultra-crappy August 2002 memo.

You'd never know from reading it, that's for sure.

Well I have a song in my head and love in my heart, so I'm heading out for some early windsurfing before the rains come.

Over the weekend I hope to visit my favorite theme park, work on improving my emotional intelligence and, like I do every weekend, put my hands on something interesting.

Have a great weekend everyone!

Mark Tobin Is Proud of His Bottles.

Hi folks, lots of fun stories floating around today.

First, as anyone working at a big firm knows, conflicts checks are a real hassle.

Just ask my buddy and excellent lawyer extraordinare Pedro Martinez-Fraga:

Martinez-Fraga asked to withdraw as counsel for the Chilean government in all four of the Miami cases after the conflict issue was raised by Berger Singerman attorneys Mitchell Berger of Fort Lauderdale and James Cunningham Jr. of Miami. They alleged in an April 27 response that the presence of another Squire Sanders attorney on Espirito Santo’s board caused a conflict. Another conflict stems from PNC’s status as a Squire Sanders client, attorneys familiar with the case say.

Espirito Santo noted Squire Sanders of counsel Eric Buermann is a senior director on Espirito Santo’s board, and a bank court filing said the Squire Sanders team initially refused to withdraw from the case.

Berger and Cunningham also wrote that Squire Sanders attorneys told them Buermann said there was no reason to withdraw.

“Squire Sanders & Dempsey indicated to the bank’s counsel that based on the facts known by Mr. Buermann, there was no reason for it to withdraw. The only way that the law firm could have reached this conclusion was by interviewing Mr. Buermann about his knowledge of the facts of the case. The bank pointed out that any such interview is a violation of ... rules of professional conduct,” Espirito Santo said in a court filing.

You know, this kind of stuff never used to happen at Greenberg.

But enough about pesky conflicts issues, let's discuss bottles and the lawyers who put delicious things in them:

Prominent Miami Lawyer Mark Tobin and his wife Christine Ferrari Tobin, recently introduced their new wine brand Mattebella, an old world style wine from their Vineyard in Long Island, New York, to the South Florida market.

"After 4 years of nurturing and aging, we are finally able to introduce our wines to the market," said Tobin, a partner in the private property rights law firm of Brigham Moore, LLP. "We are extremely proud of what is in our bottles."

You should be. And look at what's in them:

Aged only in the finest French Oak, the wine enjoys feminine tannins with hints of coffee and chocolate flavors.

Hey, I also enjoy feminine tannins with hints of coffee and chocolate flavors!

In fact I'm getting a warm fuzzy feeling just repeating the phrase "feminine tannins with hints of coffee and chocolate flavors."

Congrats Mark, you can deliver a case to my friend John the shoeshine guy over at the courthouse on Flagler, he'll get it to me pronto.

Former SSD Lawyer Likes to Eat, Also Fight Foreclosures.

Consider the career trajectory of former SSD corporate associate Raquel James.

Here she is in 2006, assisting Abbott Labs in a huge $3.7 billion acquisition:

Global law firm Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. is serving as Florida counsel for Abbott Laboratories in its pending multibillion-dollar acquisition of Kos Pharmaceuticals. Abbott announced the acquisition on Nov. 6 through a cash tender offer of US$78 per common share. Both companies are publicly held.

Abbott is a global health care products maker, and Kos is a specialty pharmaceutical company founded in Florida. The acquisition will expand Abbott’s presence in the growing lipid-management market. Abbott’s lead outside counsel Covington & Burling LLP called on Squire Sanders to support the transaction during the bidding stage.

Lawyers from three of Squire Sanders’ four Florida offices are participating in this engagement. They include Gary P. Timin (corporate and insurance, Tallahassee); Thomas R. McGuigan, Jeffrey I. Mullens and Scott M. Coffey and (all corporate, West Palm Beach); Thomas V. Eagan (real estate, Miami); and Craig D. Linder and Raquel James (corporate, Miami).

But last week Raquel, who is no longer listed as an attorney on the SSD website, was driving up to Tampa to learn how to fight foreclosures from the indomitable Legal Aid foreclosure expert April Charney:

"I've never done foreclosures, but we all have to eat,'' says Raquel James, a corporate lawyer who has driven from Miami to hear Charney.

Quite true.

Raquel, if you are out there -- hang in there.

I suspect your new career path will ultimately be a lot more satisfying and rewarding whether you do it for a year, two years, or a lifetime.

Alvin Davis On Firing "A Couple," "Some," and "A Few People."

Intrepid reporter Julie Kay delivers this deliciously rich language from Alvin in describing layoffs at SSD:

Alvin Davis, managing partner of Squire Sanders' Miami office, said on Friday that nine employees in Miami were laid off at the firm on Thursday, including "a couple runners, some staffers and a few people in accounting."

Got it -- what a bunch of anonymous nobodies.

And here's talented legal recruiter Abbe Mald Bunt on the significance of these firings:

"Part of it is humans have been replaced by technology, but the sad part is technology is not who gathers in the communal kitchens to keep the culture and spirit of a firm alive."

Note to Abbe -- those kitchen-lurking slackers usually consist of "a couple runners, some staffers, and a few people in accounting."

Anyways, what are you talking about -- have you seen that rockin' shirt/vest/glasses combo?

The spirit's alive, baby, oh yes it's alive.

Costly Arbitration Is Cheap and Efficient

That seems to be the message from the continuing money pit that is the Americatel arbitration debacle:

Americatel El Salvador won an arbitration against Compañía de Telecommunicaciones de El Salvador -- or CTE -- to allow greater access to the Salvadoran market. It also got the green light from a federal judge in Miami to collect some $12 million in compensation.

But CTE didn't stop fighting. The company has appealed the arbitration decision all the way to the Supreme Court in El Salvador and is taking the U.S. bout to the federal appeals court in Atlanta.

Riding on the outcome is more than just prying open lucrative Central American telecommunications markets.

The CTE-Americatel matchup is a test of the growing practice of binding arbitration, the very purpose of which is avoiding lengthy and costly litigation. Contracts increasingly contain clauses pledging parties to submit to binding arbitration. Americatel versus CTE is not the first arbitration case to drag on in regular courts, but it has gained widespread attention and could set a precedent for many more pending cases.

But don't worry, says former Greenberger Pedro Martinez-Fraga, now toiling for some out-of-staters at SSD:

''The Americatel case is an aberration in its complexity and not the rule,'' said Pedro Martinez-Fraga, coordinator of the international dispute resolution practice in Florida and Latin America at Squires Sanders & Dempsey.

''There's an effort by courts universally to insure that appellate recourse is minimized,'' said Martinez-Fraga, who is not involved in the case. ``That's just the way the world is heading.''

Nice try, Pedro, but the trends say otherwise. Business-to-business arbitration is increasingly as costly, in some cases more so, than an efficiently managed federal suit.

In Americatel it appears we have the worst of both worlds.

Sheesh, You Don't Have to Rub His Nose In It

So home prices are down 25 percent or so from last year, we all know this. But does the Sun-Sentinel need to rub it in? Get a load of this headline:

Miami lawyer loses $100K on Fort Lauderdale 4BD

Craig D. Linder and his wife, Alessandra, sold a four-bedroom, three bath at 3320 NE 15th Ct. in Fort Lauderdale for $865,000 to Craig Eckstein, Camilla Eckstein, Richard Eckstein and Anastasia Eckstein on May 19.

The Linders paid $965,000 for the home in July 2004. The 2,260 square foot house was built in 1958.

Mr. Linder is an attorney in the Miami office of international law firm Squire, Sanders and Dempsey LLP. His practice is focused on corporate transactions and securities regulation.

He earned his LL.M. from New York University and his J.D. from Loyola Marymount University. He received his bachelor's from California State University-Northridge.

Home sales in Fort Lauderdale dropped 26.3 percent in 2007.

There's a nice picture of Craig there too. It's good to have your name in print and all but Craig, if you or someone at SSD submitted this item to blockshopper.com I would rethink your marketing strategy.