Monday, May 25, 2015

Disney = Death! (Also: Happy Memorial Day!)

"You may leave from Mars, you may leave from Uranus....."

Friday, May 22, 2015

I Wanna Rock...for Dade Legal Aid!

It's that time of year again, when we harken back to our years at Greynolds Park and gather round the stage, hold our lighters high and scream while middle-aged lawyers live out their Rock Star fantasies.

Who am I kidding? I am jealous as hell that I don't have a musical bone in my body and that I sound like a stray cat in heat when I try to "sing." I'd give anything to be on stage with them, playing the spoons. (Hint, hint.) And all for a great cause - Dade Legal Aid.

Click HERE to register for the 4th Annual Battle of the Bands to benefit Dade Legal Aid, and save the date - Saturday May 30, 2015 from 7 to 11 pm at Sidebar on SW 8th Street (complete address and information here.)

Kudos to the four bands giving their time and rocking the house for Legal Aid: Hearsay, The Motions, Tony T. and the Triple Threat, and The Urge.

Rock on!

And She Dropped the Mic!

Attention would-be judicial quoters, pop-culture referencers, and those who try to crack the funny, wry, witty, or ironic when donning the robes of authority, this is how it's done:
A rose by any other name may smell as sweet. See William Shakespeare, “Romeo and Juliet,” act 2, sc. 2. People, not so much.

Seriously, this is the gold standard.

Wow, I suddenly feel elated going into the long holiday weekend.

Thank you Judge Bloom!

Thursday, May 21, 2015

What Makes Lawyers Happy?

So asks the Daily Business Review in this article.

The answers, according to the DBR poll?
A sense of autonomy...being authentic and true to oneself.
Relatedness to other people.
Internal motivation for work - how much they chose their work because they actually enjoy it day to day and the purpose is important to them rather than external reasons like pay or prestige.
What, are these lawyers in Sweden?

We took our own little poll and here is what we found makes SF lawyers happy.

All part of selling your soul to the devil, I suppose.

Can the 3d DCA Escape FL Supreme Court Review With a One-Sentence Affirmance?

No it cannot you crafty fellows:
Dr. Weingrad argues that there is nothing in the Third District’s one-sentence affirmance that provides this Court with jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. We disagree.

Under article V, section 3(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution, this Court has jurisdiction to review a decision of a district court of appeal that “expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of [this Court] on the same question of law.” Art. V, §3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
The decision on review is not merely an unelaborated affirmance, but specifically relies on, and cites to, the decision in Miles I. Miles II, 103 So. 3d at 260 (“Finding no conflict between our prior opinion in [Miles I], and the Supreme Court’s opinion in [Spiewak], we affirm.”).
And guess what -- after determining that jurisdiction exists, the Supremes quashed the 3d's opinion.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

3d DCA Watch -- The Bunker is Back!

The bunker is in mourning this morning, now that the Resplendently Robed Ones have been de-festooned, leaving only black judicial shrouds of mindless sameness and conformity.

But wait -- they can't take away our expressive underwear!

It's party time -- things are back on track!

Let's dig in:

Laquer v. Citizens:

Partial sj reversed on issue of whether insured gave "late" notice of a claim.

Israel v. North Miami:

Israel vs North Miami?

I'm pretty sure I know who would win that one.

BREAKING! Florida Supreme Court Tackles Thorny Issue!

You can read about it here.
The Florida Supreme Court is set to consider a rule that would require all judges to wear solid black robes without embellishment during judicial proceedings.
We are all for less embellishment from our state court judges, but we got to thinking: isn't the robe less important than what's under the robe? You know - legal acumen, judicial temperament, life experience. So we here at SFL compiled additional considerations for the Court.

Bowties: no. Unless Alvin Davis, Paul Rashkind or Ben Kuehne don the robe.
Thongs: yes. Unless Alvin Davis, Paul Rashkind or Ben Kuehne don the robe.
Shoes must remain shined at all times. No sneakers. No sensible shoes. No tiny tasseled loafers.
Louboutins: yes. Please.
Silly ties: no.
Shirts: pressed.
Plaid: never.
Keep the beard neatly trimmed. (Milt.)

We could go on.

Speaking of sartorial elegance, I'm off to prepare for my upcoming hearing before Judge Ungaro.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

"Would You Like Rudimentary Legal Help With Your Vodka and Muffin"?

I've long advocated for vodka-and-muffin kiosks, where a harried businessperson, walking into an office building from a long, bruising morning commute, can simply down a chilled shot of vodka and pick up a ginormous muffin to help ease into that morning grind.

These kiosks would be strategically placed throughout South Florida, wherever lawyers congregate, such as strip clubs but also outside our local courthouses (think a hipper, newer version of Sally Russell's!).

And now we can add a dollop of legal assistance to the vodka-and-muffin pick-me-up:
People needing help with divorces, foreclosures or child support could use public computers at libraries, shopping malls or courthouses as a type of legal "triage" under a proposal approved by the Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice.

Also, nonlawyers could provide courtroom assistance to poor and middle-income people under another idea considered by the panel, the brainchild of Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Jorge Labarga.
"Would you like a no-fault divorce with your berry-flavored Stoli and pumpkin mega-muffin"?

I really like how that rolls off the tongue!

Monday, May 18, 2015

The Army Behind the Man.

It's often said that the logistics operation behind D-Day was the largest ever attempted in human history -- the sheer scope and massive nature of the historic liberation of Europe demanded unparalleled planning, resource allocation, and deployment of material, weaponry, and millions of soldiers on a scale never before seen and never since repeated.

The slight-of-hand, ingenuity, labor, dedication and sacrifice required to put Spencer together is much like the bloody invasion of France -- see for yourself:

Too much?

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Oy Veh This Is Not a Good R&R!

In the continuing battle between a local blogger and her wealthy landlord, in comes this R&R from Magistrate Judge Torres recommending the blogger and her counsel receive over $150k in fees and costs for defending against an "objectively unreasonable" lawsuit filed for an "improper purpose":
During the more than two years that this litigation consumed, Plaintiff should have at all times known his claim would eventually fail when the truth of his motivations was eventually known. After Plaintiff’s lengthy attempts to improperly quiet Defendant through this lawsuit, evident in his vigorous litigation of an improper claim, this Court concludes that the objectively unreasonable factor strongly weighs in favor of Defendant.
. . . .
Here, it is crystal clear that Plaintiff’s motivations pursuing this lawsuit were improper. Instead of using the law for its intended purposes of fostering ideas and expression, Plaintiff obtained the photograph’s copyright solely for the purpose of suppressing Defendant’s free speech. Unsurprisingly, Plaintiff argues that protecting his rights under the Copyright Act was his sole motivation for filing this suit. [D.E. 187 at 13]. That assertion is rather dubious. Plaintiff has characterized this action as “just one battle” in a “malicious war.” [D.E. 187 at 1]. While Plaintiff might view it necessary to remove his unflattering picture to “stop this atrocity” [D.E. 148 at 23], he may not resort to abusive methods to do so.
I'm not a lawyer (actually I am) but this doesn't sound all too good.

Query -- who thinks filing an over-the-top indignant, aggressive objection will convince Judge King to completely rule the other way?