Wednesday, September 11, 2013

3d DCA Watch -- Judge Shepherd Lowers the (Concrete) Boom.


I'm not in much of a humorous mood after reading this brutal opinion by Judge Shepherd sanctioning two lawyers for filing a "frivolous" petition for writ of prohibition "in bad faith" and referring them to the Florida Bar.

Judge Shepherd didn't think highly of their tactics below either, calling a novel use of ellipses there to be "patently false."

Finally, he reminds lawyers that the "I was just following orders" defense doesn't work for members of our profession.

He's right; they don't work for anyone.

15 comments:

  1. I actually winced when I read the last two pages. How fuckin' embarrassing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dick move to include the associate by the judge...unnecessary

    ReplyDelete
  3. disagree; an associate is a lawyer just like the partner. Too many associates think otherwise and obviously so do you. The law however is clear that an associate has no defense to misconduct that the partner made me do it. That may be a defense to the level of punishment before the bar; but not to the underlying misconduct. This case is crazy - to think that lawyers would press the argument this far in this manner. They deserved what they got.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1:31 here - I agree with you, okay, sanction him. But the partner has the prior history that makes the referral appropriate for him.

    The court did not have to send the younger kid to the bar (dude had been a lawyer for less than 4 years). Could they? Yes. Is doing it a dick move? Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with 1:41. He's a fifth year associate with a small firm; probably not getting the mentoring he needs and the referral is too harsh.

    ReplyDelete
  6. When journalism is illegal what hope does lawyering have?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I love it.

    All the shitbag lawyers who game the state court system and take advantage of judges too overwhelmed or scared to put their feet down.

    Flush the toilet and clear them out.

    All of them . No pass for the newbie.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If anyone has ever had the pleasure of litigating against Grumer and Goldman, this decision is no suprise....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Check out his website. One of his references is a lawyer who has been disbarred. DOH.

    ReplyDelete
  10. They have 2 associates. One is a 2009 (who got sanctioned) and the other is a 2012.

    The firm's website contains this statement: "Experience is essential. At Grumer & Macaluso, P.A. every attorney has been practicing law for 15 years or more."

    ReplyDelete
  11. If judges in this State and elsewhere, including federal judges, would consistently hold both schmucks like these guys but the Big Law firms and everyone in between to the governing standards, as these three judges did, practicing litigation would not be such a demoralizing experience. Misleading ellipses are bad enough. What about mischaracterizing the evidence, misstating the law, omitting to cite binding authority, etc., etc.? This crap goes on every day. Hats off to Larry, I mean Frank, Vance and Richard.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Is it possible that the attorneys confused the Marsh defendants and the Minkow defendants because they both begin with the letter M?

    Unfortunately, it does appear that these attorneys misrepresented the facts to the tribunals in order to obtain a dismissal. If the panel indeed describes their actions accurately, the Third DCA was correct in ordering the clerk to forward the opinion to the Florida Bar.

    ReplyDelete
  13. From bad to worse. Read Thursday DBR article. Blame it on the other guy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Love the use of the word "legerdemain" in FN 2 of the opinion.

    ReplyDelete