Here's an interesting video that puts together a point-counterpoint from the candidates on Dan Gelber's resignation from Akerman as that firm took on the massive BP Oil Spill defense work.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- Dan was slightly slow off the dime on this issue, and initially offered some weak tea in defense of his original argument that no conflict exists.
So David could certainly raise that as a legitimate issue.
But now that the issue has been resolved, I'm not following David in his continuing pursuit of it.
Could BP move to recuse Dan from the case if he is elected Attorney General?
Not likely in my view.
On the other hand, Dan has a slight case of exaggerated vapors in his reaction to it all, don't you think?
What strikes me, as I listen to Dan explain the timeline, is that it's pretty clear he didn't get much of a heads up from the firm as it aggressively (and successfully) sought out the business.
That's BigFirm life for you.