3d DCA Watch -- A Little Splash'll Do Ya

Yes kiddies it's that time of the week -- your favorite hump day activity -- so let us peer down south upon the wizened, robed coffee-stained brains that decide the governing law for us who merely toil in labor on Flagler Street, yes it is this week's edition of 3d DCA Watch:

It's not easy being Pete Loblack.

First you have to sue drug megagiant Pfizer over an alleged Lipitor-related liver failure at UM. That's hard enough. Then you have to deal with Skadden Arps, a fate in most cases way worse than death (for all sides, have you seen their bills?). On top of that Judge Thomas "Tam Tam" Wilson apparently doesn't like references to the Holocaust or the Nuremberg Code in your pleadings, or when you disregard his orders on how to plead your claim. Oh yeah, it didn't help that you failed to show up at a case management conference. What's a guy to do?

Well, you appeal an order dismissing your client's case and sanctioning you and your client $20k.
According to the 3d DCA, it's a win/loss, in that the Court reversed the dismissal but affirmed the lawyer sanction:

Here, defendants’ counsel candidly admitted that the actions meriting sanction were those of Burgess’ attorney and not Burgess herself. Defendants’ counsel also conceded that, but for all of the hyperbole in Burgess’ various complaints, Burgess had stated a cause of action sounding in negligence. Additionally, the prejudice suffered by Defendants was addressed in the monetary sanction imposed. Moreover, while we cannot fault the trial judge’s characterization of counsel’s conduct as “willful,” our review of the record indicates that this willfulness was the result of at least a splash of lack of ability rather than a wholly purposeful intention to disregard the court’s instructions.

Respectfully Judge Wells, exactly what the hail is "at least a splash of lack of ability"? But wait -- first tell me what alternative phrases were considered and rejected. Oh the mind races with possibilities.

Here's dissenting Judge Ramirez's stab, who apparently thinks about things like "standard of review" and other odd concepts:

In my view, the only area where Mr. Loblack lacked “ability” was in complying with the trial court’s guidelines and direct orders.

So I guess this is a compliment of sorts?

Anyways Pete, we wish you good luck below -- you know what they say, the seventh time's the charm.