ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Florida Blogs -> South Florida Lawyers

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Florida

: South Florida Lawyers

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

ADVERTISEMENTS

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.

Full post as published by South Florida Lawyers on September 03, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0132 secs (new cache)