The Miami legal maeket is en fuego

 All the big firms are opening shops in the 305.  Chiacgo's Sidley Austin is the latest with a 40 lawyer office.  From Reuters:

  After months of recruiting lawyers from rival firms in Miami, Sidley Austin said on Wednesday it has opened a physical office in the South Florida city that has become a popular spot for large firms' expansion efforts.

Chicago-founded Sidley said it already amassed more than 40 lawyers in Miami through hiring and relocations before formally opening the office.

Lawyers from the firm are currently working out of a temporary space in the city and will move next year into a new office tower in Miami's financial district.

Miami has attracted several other big law firms this year that are following the migration of lawyers and clients in the tech and finance sectors to South Florida during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Two other Chicago-founded firms, Kirkland & Ellis and Winston & Strawn, have opened up Miami outposts in recent months. Atlanta-founded King & Spalding and Quinn Emanuel Urqhuart & Sullivan, which was started in Los Angeles, have also planted roots there.

 And Dearest Rumpole, the Verdict is great, but A Few Good Men is better:

'Dobbs' Will Open the Floodgates to Litigation

 That's the title of an op-ed that my oldest daughter Nicole Markus (and I) wrote about Dobbs.  The intro:

My co-author and father was born in 1972, almost 50 years ago. (Sorry, dad). The next year, in 1973, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy, which includes the right to have an abortion. A few months ago, someone leaked a draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, suggesting the court was about to overturn Roe and later cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which reaffirmed Roe in 1992).

Dobbs is now official, and the Supreme Court, per Justice Samuel Alito, did not change much from that draft opinion. It is now the law of the land that states can not only prohibit—but affirmatively criminalize—abortion. That means, for example, that if a woman finds out that a fetus will be born without a heart and will die within minutes of birth, a state can force her to remain pregnant for nine months and have the child, only to watch it immediately die. If a state chooses, it can force a 10-year-old rape victim only six weeks pregnant to carry a pregnancy to term (or risk being arrested for traveling to another state, as one such victim allegedly had to do after Ohio’s total ban on abortions took effect in the aftermath of Dobbs).

In Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Dobbs concurrence, he offered the wishful thought that the court is now free from deciding further abortion cases. Boy, was he wrong. It already is clear that Dobbs is going to lead to an avalanche of litigation.

Would love your thoughts.

Judging in Times of Crisis

                                  

Washington Reviewing the Western Army, by Kemmelmeyer, Fred., 1796-99

By John R. Byrne

That's the subject of Judge Altman's forward to the recent issue of the University of Miami Law Review. He covers the role judges have played in various domestic crises, from Justice James Wilson authorizing President Washington to use force to put down the Whiskey Rebellion to Chief Justice Taney's ruling that President Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus--done to facilitate the seizure of a confederate sympathizer--was unconstitutional. Most relevant to our district, he discusses how the COVID-19 pandemic posed its own set of challenges to the judiciary, including how to resolve whether the Court's suspension of grand-jury proceedings meant that defendants indicted after the expiration of the statute of limitations must have those indictments dismissed (Judge Altman and Judge Ruiz held "no" and Judge Middlebrooks "yes"). The Eleventh Circuit is set to weigh in on that issue soon. Interesting read!

RIP Jerry Shargel

 Legendary criminal defense lawyer Gerald Shargel (left, with Bruce Cutler and John Gotti) passed away over the weekend.  From the New York Times:

Mr. Shargel argued that he was no more aggressive in defending his clients than the government was in prosecuting them.

Referring to the extortion and robbery case against John Gotti Jr., a son of the reputed mob boss, he said, “The Government’s campaign reminds me of something that Gregory Scarpa” — a deceased member of the Colombo crime family — “once was heard to say,” he told The New York Times in 1999. “After he killed a particular person, he was heard saying that he hated the guy so much that he wanted to dig him up and kill him again. The Government hates John Gotti, the father, so much that they’re trying him again, through his son.”

“Clients hire me,” he told The New Yorker in a 1994 profile, “because I’ll do anything that the law will allow, without concern for how it’s gonna make me look.”

“6-3 is the new SCOTUS 5-4“

That’s the title of this interesting post by Adam Feldman over at Empirical SCOTUS.  It starts:

What this means? The Court’s most common split vote this term was six justices in the majority and three justices in dissent. The most frequent six justices in the majority were the Court’s conservative justices and the most frequent in the dissent were the three liberal justices.

Why this matters? The Court’s biggest cases came in the 2021/2022 Term came down to this vote. This includes Dobbs (abortion), NY Rifle (guns), Kennedy and Carson (religious liberty) and WV v. EPA (Clean Air Act).  When at least five of the conservative justices voted together there was no opposing vote that could decide the outcome to a case. These big cases though all had a supermajority of six votes.

What do the numbers show? 13 of the 18 six to three decisions this term came down along ideological lines. This is up from 10 of 18 six to three decisions last term. Last term also had much less ideologically charged cases on the docket with the biggest cases dealing with voting rights issues (Brnovich), campaign donations (Americans for Prosperity Foundation), and unions (Cedar Point).