3rd DCA Finalists

Some of our federal practioners have made the cut to be considered for an appointment to the Third DCA, our state appellate court for Miami. The six finalists are AUSA Barbara Lagoa, Judge Israel Reyes, AUSA Lisette Reid, AUSA Hugo Black III, Sanford Bohrer and Douglas Stein. The JNC has put together a great group for consideration. This morning's DBR article by Carl Jones explores what sorts of questions are appropriate during interviews. Apparently Ms. Lagoa was asked about whether she could balance motherhood (she recently had twins) and work. Unbelievable that people are still asking these sorts of questions. Shame on them. Here is the beginning of Jones' article:

The issue of improper questioning of judicial candidates emerged anew during this week’s Judicial Nominating Commission interviews of applicants for a 3rd District Court of Appeal seat. During interviews on Tuesday, JNC member Hector Lombana, a Coral Gables lawyer, asked candidate Barbara Lagoa, a federal prosecutor who recently gave birth to twins, whether she felt she could balance motherhood and the workload of serving on the 3rd DCA. The JNC chair, Ramon Abadin, later called the question “inappropriate.” The panel subsequently chose Lagoa as one of six finalists it recommended to Gov. Jeb Bush.

Who Should Argue?

Very interesting article about whether the "solo-practioner" criminal defense lawyer should step-aside to allow a "big firm" or "experienced advocate" to argue before the Supreme Court. In fact the Supreme Court oral argument session had 22 state criminal cases this year. It seems to me that more often that not, the client wants the attorney who has fought for him to argue before the Court, regardless of where the person works or where he went to school. The question remains, however, is the solo-practioner representing the best interest of his client if he has never argued before the Supreme Court? Are the experienced folk who are trying to "take-over" these cases carnivores or justified in trying to present more articulate and persuasive arguments before the Court? Questions to ponder....

News and notes

1. Guilty on all counts for Masferrer. It was front page news for the Herald and the DBR. From what I understand, Judge Moore precluded the defense from the first trial. Start your appellate engines.

2. Fourth Circuit Judge Luttig resigned to go work at Boeing. I'm not a Luttig fan, but we have to pay our judges more or they are gonna keep leaving for higher paying gigs.

3. Tomorrow at noon is the filing deadline for state judges. Lots of coverage over at the Justice Building blog.

Take two...

The jury now has the case in United States v. Masferrer, the Hamilton Bank case. This is the second trial after the first jury couldn't reach a verdict. Ben Greenberg, Peter Outerbridge, and Andrew Levi prosecuted the case. Howard and Scott Srebnick defended.

Special Assesments...

Criminal lawyers are well familiar with special assesments. For every count of conviction, a defendant must pay a $100 special assesment.

Now, Thomas Tew is asking that all members of the Florida Bar pay a $178 special assesment to help pay back victims of Louis Robles. Julie Kay has all the details in her Justice Watch column today. Here is the intro:

The plaintiff attorney in a federal class action lawsuit against The Florida Bar is calling for a $178 special assessment on each of the Bar’s 77,000 members to reimburse victims of disbarred Miami attorney Louis Robles. In motions filed by Miami lawyer Thomas Tew, who represents about 4,000 former Robles asbestos clients, Tew claims that the Bar is being disingenuous in its arguments for refusing to come up with a $13.5 million lump sum payment to cover the clients for the money they lost to Robles. “The Florida Bar evidently believes that the price tag for administering the [Client Security Fund] legally, $178 per active member, is simply too high,” Tew wrote in a recent response to the Bar’s motion to dismiss. “As a result, the constitutional rights of over 4,000 citizens who were swindled by their [Bar-regulated] attorney… have been trampled.”

Tew's proposal strikes me as odd -- why should an entire profession be required to pay almost $200 per person (approx. $15 million) because someone else committed fraud. Thoughts?