11th Circuit Conference

 Well we had the 11th Circuit Conference this week in Aventura.  The conference is every two years and rotates among the states in the 11th Circuit.  This was our year.  Chief Judge Pryor, Chief Judge Altonaga, and the rest of the planning committee put on a lovely and well-attended conference.  Almost all of the district and circuit judges attended.  And the final talk was with Justice Thomas, our Circuit Justice.  

BREAKING -- Your newest Magistrate Judge is Brandy Galler

 

 

Congratulations.  Ms. Galler will be sitting in Ft. Pierce.  

Let 'er Rip

By John R. Byrne

Hollywood has come to the SDFLA. Or at least a case involving Hollywood has.

Did you see Netflix’s The Rip? If not, I can’t blame you. It was one of those direct-to-Netflix movies. But it had real star power. Ben Affleck and Matt Damon reunite on screen as members of a Miami narcotics tactical unit that discovers millions in cash inside a stash house. Netflix describes it this way: “Trust frays when a team of Miami cops discovers millions in cash inside a run-down stash house, calling everyone — and everything — into question.”

The movie opens by saying it was “inspired by true events.” According to a new complaint filed in the Southern District of Florida, the true event was a June 29, 2016 Miami-Dade narcotics investigation that led to the seizure of more than $21 million in currency from a suspected marijuana trafficker’s home in Miami Lakes.

The officers who say they supervised and led that real investigation are not happy with the movie or what it allegedly implies about them. Last week, they sued the production companies behind the film, including Artists Equity, LLC, which was founded by Affleck and Damon.

The complaint alleges that, although the film uses fictional names, it copied highly specific details from the real seizure (Miami-Dade narcotics officers, the Miami Lakes/Hialeah setting, cash hidden in orange buckets inside walls, a cash-sniffing dog, a TEC-9). It then “Holly-fied” the rest, presenting a story about corruption, theft, cartel communications, arson, and murder. As the complaint puts it, third parties began asking the plaintiffs “which character they were and how many buckets they kept.”

You can read the complaint, which is getting national media coverage, here. The case is Smith v. Falco Pictures, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-23213, in the Southern District of Florida. It’s in front of Chief Judge Altonaga.

As a postscript, Affleck apparently plays a character named “J.D. Byrne.” No comment.

Judge Lenore Nesbitt

 By John R. Byrne

We probably should have featured Judge Nesbitt's portrait back in March when it was Women's History Month--but better late than never. 

Judge Nesbitt was certainly a trailblazer. A few milestones worth noting:

She was the first woman appointed to the federal bench in the Southern District of Florida.

She graduated first in her class at University of Miami law school in 1957, where she was the only woman in the class. 

And yet, when she applied to law firms after graduation, she was only offered a secretarial job. She pressed on, practicing law with her husband, Joseph Nesbitt, before becoming a state trial court judge in 1975 and then a federal judge in 1983.

FBA write up below:

Judge Lenore Nesbitt was nominated to the district court in 1983 by President Reagan. Judge Nesbitt graduated first in her class at the University of Miami School of Law in 1957. While on the state bench, Judge Nesbitt presided over the trial of the police officers charged with the beating death of Arthur McDuffie and coverup of the same. She moved the trial to Tampa, due to the volatile atmosphere in Miami, which Judge Nesbitt described as a “time bomb”; the acquittal of the officers nonetheless sparked protests and riots through our city. Described by Judge Davis as the “true first lady of the court,” Judge Nesbitt was the first female judge appointed to the bench in this district. She served on the bench until 2001. 

By John R. Byrne

Happy Friday. Some positive news to end the week. 

Last night, I attended an awards ceremony at Holland & Knight. This time, the awards were not being handed out to lawyers or judges. The room was filled with middle school kids, ages 12-14. 

The event was part of the "Do the Write Thing" violence prevention program, which invites middle school students to write essays, poems, songs, or stories about the impact of violence on their lives and to offer solutions for reducing it. 

During the ceremony,  Miami-Dade County Public Defender Carlos Martinez talked about the positive impact the program has had on the community and on himself personally (Martinez volunteers to review the submissions). 

Kudos to Holland & Knight, and especially to attorney Eduardo A. Ramos. Ramos has run the program in Miami since 2010, a clear labor of love and service to our community. 

And, yes, I had a good reason to be there. My daughter, Vera, was one of the finalists! Alas, she didn’t win, so there’s no free trip to Washington D.C. in my future. But I could not have been prouder. 

                                             Eduardo A. Ramos and Carlos Martinez

News & Notes

1.  On Tuesday, the court had its Jewish American History Month presentation at the courthouse.  Judge Leibowitz presided over an interesting panel and his family Norman and Irman Braman were honored.

2.  While we are on Jewish American History Month, Judge Roy Altman's book Israel on Trial is #12 on the New York Times best seller list.

3.  Switching gears, the Haitian murder jury is deliberating.  Day #2 starts today.

4.  Lots of immigration battles occurring now in our courts.  The 11th Circuit had this 2-1 opinion yesterday covering 110 pages of debate between Judges Marcus and Rosenbaum on one side, and Judge Lagoa on the other.  Marcus starts this way:

The question we face today is whether unadmitted aliens found in the interior of the United States are eligible for bond while they go through immigration proceedings. For nearly thirty years, the answer to that question was, for most aliens, “yes.” Last year, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) took a different view. It now maintains that these aliens must be detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). We are called on to decide if the Government’s new reading of § 1225(b)(2)(A) is correct. Hundreds of district courts and four other circuits have already weighed in, reaching well-reasoned yet distinctly contrary conclusions. See Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-3141, 2026 WL 1146044 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2026); Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026); Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026); Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir. 2025); see also Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 25-3050, 2026 WL 1223250 (7th Cir. May 5, 2026). This is the first time our Court has addressed the question. In these consolidated appeals, Petitioners -- Fidencio Hernandez Alvarez and Ismael Cerro Perez -- were detained without the possibility of a bond hearing pursuant to § 1225(b)(2)(A). Each challenged his detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8, 18, and 28 U.S.C.). On review of Petitioners’ habeas claims, the district court held that the discretionary detention provisions found in § 1226 governed their detention instead, rendering each of them eligible for bond. The Government appeals that decision. It insists that under § 1225(b)(2)(A), Petitioners -- as aliens present in the United States without having been lawfully admitted -- are “applicants for admission,” and so they must be detained without the possibility of bond unless they can establish clearly and beyond a doubt that they are entitled to be admitted. We are unpersuaded by the Government’s re-interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A). That provision limits no-bond detention to applicants for admission who are “seeking admission,” and on the facts of this case, neither Petitioner was seeking lawful entry into the United States after inspection by an immigration officer when he was arrested, nor was either Petitioner taking any cognizable step to obtain the rights and privileges of lawful entry. In fact, neither Petitioner was pursuing any object, let alone “lawful entry,” when he was detained following a traffic stop. The text and statutory structure of the INA, bolstered by the long history of detention across our immigration laws and the congressional purpose in passing IIRIRA, yield the conclusion that nobond detention generally applies to arriving aliens seeking lawful entry to the country, and not to aliens who are simply present here. Finally, we reject the Government’s claim that even if it has misread the INA, Petitioners are now “seeking admission” because they did not voluntarily self-deport after the initiation of removal proceedings. We do not hold that Congress is without the power to authorize the detention of unadmitted aliens who are simply present in the country. That question is not before us. We hold only that Congress has not done so under the provisions found in the INA. Nor do we decide whether either Petitioner is a flight risk or would pose a danger to the community if he were released on bond. That, too, is not before us. We affirm the grant of habeas relief in each of these consolidated cases.

Judge Lagoa starts her dissent:

The majority concedes that “applicant for admission” and “seeking admission,” on their ordinary meaning, are “synonymous.” Maj. Op. 15–16. It then spends fifty pages explaining why the ordinary meaning does not apply. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits disagree. See Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026); Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026). So do I. I respectfully dissent.  

Judge Edward B. Davis

Thank you to John and the Federal Bar Association for these wonderful portrait posts.  I really enjoy them. This week we have my old boss, Chief Judge Edward B. Davis.  I wanted to say a few words about this giant of a man – both literally and figuratively.  Judge Davis was the ideal judge.  I have so many great stories about him from my clerkship back in 1997. 

The first Friday of my clerkship, around 4:30pm, he asked me to get the other clerks and to pour everyone a drink.  He gestured to the cabinet.  We sat around and had scotch and discussed the first week.  Hard to describe the moment of sitting with your boss, drinking scotch, and discussing the law and cases. 

I remember the Frank Quintero trial and Frank walking out the door.  Judge Davis was happy for him.

I remember driving Judge Davis in his huge Cadillac to Fort Pierce and him telling me to “step on it, son.”

I remember watching Dick Gregorie try a case against Hugo Rodriguez and Hector Flores and watching Judge Davis turn his chair around and laugh when there was some pushing and pulling of a big poster board during opening.

But the thing that sticks with me the most is how he treated everyone – lawyers, litigants, defendants, staff – the same.  With humility and respect.  And humor.  The absolute best. 

After seeing how some of our judges treat lawyers and their clients these days, we really need more like Judge Davis.

***FBA Post Below***

Judge Davis was nominated to the district court by President Carter in 1979; he served on the court until 2000. In his youth, Judge Davis achieved athletic excellence in baseball, basketball, and football, earning the nickname “Boomer.” He signed with the Detroit Tigers out of high school, but his professional baseball career ended as a result of two years’ service in the U.S. Army, where he served in the Korean War. On the bench, Judge Davis was known for treating all who came before him with respect. Described as “selfless, compassionate, caring, bright and kind,” Judge Davis left a legacy of service and excellence. 

RIP James Lawrence King

 An icon. 98 years old and was on the federal bench since 1970... one of the longest serving ever.

From Judge Moreno:

Judge King died this morning. He was a great trial judge particularly in his first 4 decades of service. I tried several cases , including a murder trial in the early 80s and can attest how fair he was pre trial and even at sentencing. He was a great Chief Judge, got the buildings for Miami. Appointed by Nixon in 1970 he served as an active judge until he took senior status as soon as he was eligible to help the court get a replacement in those busier days. He was no

longer taking cases because of illness but served for 55 years. May he rest in peace. FAM

I will post other comments here as well.

Judge Williams Appoints Amici in Trump v. IRS

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

Judge Williams sua sponte appointed three friends of the court to opine as to whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction in the lawsuit President Trump brought against the Internal Revenue Service. The parties had asked for 90 days to explore potential settlement and Judge Williams expressed concerns regarding whether the parties are truly adverse.

Judge Williams appointed heavyweights from outside the district to opine, namley: John Gleeson and David A. O’Neil of Debevoise and Plimpton; Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. of Munger Tolles; and Faith E. Gay, Philippe Z. Selendy, and Corey Stoughton of Selendy Gay. Their memorandum is due on May 21. The order can be found here.

Well-Deserved Award Recipients (Past and Future)

By John R. Byrne

Sharing some news from the awards circuit. This past Tuesday, the American Jewish Committee presented its Learned Hand Award to attorney Bobby Gilbert. In addition to being an exceptional lawyer (and golfer), Bobby is a great person who has done so much for the Jewish community, both here in South Florida and abroad. Plus, he graduated from the best high school in the country, Miami Palmetto Senior High. Several of our state and federal judges were there to celebrate Bobby. 

Next up, on May 28, 2026, Transition will honor federal judge Raag Singhal and state judge Marisa Tinkler Mendez at its Heroes Reception. Transition does important work helping people leaving the prison system reenter our community. 

Well-deserved recipients and causes.  

Vodou Assasination Expert?!

 By John R. Byrne

The big trial involving the assassination of the Haitian president is winding down. Closing arguments could be next week. And this sounds like it's been an interesting one. Just this week, the defense attempted to call a Vodou expert. Yes, a Vodou expert. The theory was apparently that the manner in which President Moise's body was treated after being murdered (both his arms were broken and his face "was destroyed") suggested something more or different than a simple assassination for pay.  

But Judge Becerra wasn't going for it. “I find it curious that a Vodou priest would be able to take the stand and say that he is well-versed in Vodou assassinations, which appears to me to be something, on its face, impossible because it’s not something that that religion condones."

I guess we'll never find out what the hourly rate of a Vodou expert is.

The Herald recaps where things stand here. 

Increasing the Price of Admission to Federal Court

By John R. Byrne

Since 1996, for diversity cases, the price of admission to get your lawsuit into federal court has been $75,000-plus — i.e., the amount in controversy had to exceed $75,000.

It’s safe to say that a dollar doesn’t go as far today as it did back then. And, finally, it looks like Congress may do something about it. Last week, Rep. Laurel Lee introduced the Federal Diversity Jurisdiction Modernization Act. If passed, the Act will raise the amount in controversy from $75,000 to $500,000. To give you some context, $75k in 1996 is roughly equivalent to $158k today, so this is more than just an inflation adjustment.

The reason for the increase? Our federal courts are slammed. Since 1990, federal filings have increased by 30% while the number of authorized district court judgeships has grown by only 4%. Legislation creating more judgeships has stalled out because of political bickering, so this looks like an alternative path to addressing the federal caseload.

This is long overdue. But the Act needs a cooler name. How about the “Don’t Make a Federal Case Out of It” Act?

You can read the press release for the Act here. 

Roy Moore's $8.2 Million Verdict Goes Poof at the Eleventh Circuit

By John R. Byrne

Do you remember Roy Moore? He was the Republican nominee in the special election to fill the Alabama Senate seat Jeff Sessions vacated when he became Attorney General. You may also remember the wave of news coverage reporting allegations that several women had accused Moore of inappropriate sexual conduct when they were young.

Moore later sued a political action committee (Senate Majority PAC) over a political ad that quoted and juxtaposed some of those reports. A jury sided with Moore, finding the ad defamatory and awarding him $8.2 million in compensatory damages.

But Moore will not be collecting a penny. In an opinion issued Friday, the Eleventh Circuit held that the trial court should have granted judgment as a matter of law to Senate Majority PAC. The issue was not simply whether the ad could be read to imply something defamatory (the Court said it could). The problem for Moore was that, because he was a public figure, he had to prove that the PAC acted with “actual malice." The court found the evidence lacking on that front, emphasizing, among other things, that the ad quoted and cited existing news reports and that the PAC had a fact-checking process before publication.

It's just the latest case applying the NY Times v. Sullivan standard, a standard that's come under fire recently from judges in our circuit (both district and appellate). The panel in the case again acknowledged the criticism of the Sullivan standard in a footnote, writing that "unless and until the Supreme Court decides to revisit the actual malice standard, we must continue to apply it."

You can read the opinion here.

Alligator Alcatraz Injunction Vacated

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

As a follow-up to the last post about Alligator Alcatraz, the Eleventh Circuit has reversed and remanded the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Williams. Judges Pryor and Brasher were in the majority with Judge Abudu in dissent.

There has been a trend, even in appellate opinion writing, to use simpler, more forceful language. The disssent's conclusion fits right in: "In sum, the majority, under the guise of de novo review, disregards the district court’s well-supported factual findings in favor of its own, thereby blurring in more than just an idiosyncratic way, the important distinction between legal conclusions and factual findings. [...] Therefore, the majority’s decision to vacate the district court’s order is just plain wrong. I dissent."

The full opinion is available at this link.

Judge Eugene Spellman

By John R. Byrne

Today we're featuring the portrait of Judge Eugene Spellman. Like a few of the judges we've featured before, Judge Spellman was a "Double Gator," getting his undergraduate degree from UF in 1953 and his law degree in 1955. Appointed to the federal bench by Jimmy Carter in 1979, he served until 1991 (leaving the bench just a week before his death from cancer at the age of 60). His most historically significant public case appears to be the Haitian-refugee litigation in Louis v. Nelson / Jean v. Nelson, discussed more below.

I don't know much about Judge Spellman, but it's clear that his colleagues must have liked him because the attorney lounge in the Wilkie D. Ferguson courthouse is named after him. 

FBA write up here:

Judge Eugene Spellman was nominated to the district court by President Carter in 1979; he served on the court until 1991. In 1982, Judge Spellman held in Louis v. Nelson, 544 F. Supp. 973 (S.D. Fla. 1982), that a policy by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which resulted in the detention of Haitian migrants, was unlawful, resulting in the release of hundreds of migrants who had been unlawfully detained. Known for his humor and empathy, Judge Spellman was remembered as follows: “His personal and professional integrity and the intellectual rigor with which he confronted his tasks were beyond reproach.”

Update on Brennan probe

 In an update to John's post below, here is the Legion of Doom the official photo swearing Joe DiGenova in today:

 

JUST IN: Former US Atty for DC Joe diGenova sworn in as a counselor to the attorney general to pursue alleged anti-Trump conspiracy related to 2016 election. Official photo: pic.twitter.com/R7t4MmSEM5

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) April 20, 2026

Miscellaneous Monday

By John R. Byrne

Our country turns 250 years old on the Fourth of July and, to mark the occasion, Judge Bloom is hosting a National Law Day of Action on May 1 at the Wilkie D. Lawyers will symbolically re-take their oaths during the ceremony. You can RSVP here. Space is limited, so, if you're interested, you should sign up sooner rather than later. Just email Judge Bloom's chambers email, which is included in the link.

The blog proprietor would never post this Politico article himself. But if it were about any other lawyer from our district, we'd be all over it. It’s a fascinating read, with some behind-the-scenes insight into a few of the biggest cases in our district and the country.

Also, some big local news landed late afternoon on Friday. The DOJ probe into ex-CIA director James Brennan over the Trump-Russia investigation is now being helmed by Joseph diGenova. DiGenova is a former Trump attorney and is replacing SDFLA prosecutor Maria Medetis Long. Article here. 

And, in non-legal news, if you've grown up in Miami, there's a good chance you've stepped onto one of those oversized scales in Publix. It's a tradition that sadly may be going away. The company that makes the scales stopped manufacturing them in 2015, and new Publixes are opening without them. Herald covers that here. 

Friday News and Notes

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

• The Miami Herald is covering Sean Combs' continued legal fight with the headline: "Diddy’s ‘freak-offs’ were his right as an American, lawyers argue." Not quite as catchy as "Freak-O does not equal RICO" but evocative nonetheless.
• Since the shuttering of Godwhacker’s South Florida Lawyers Blog, there are less posts about cruise line cases. On Monday, however, a jury rendered verdict of $300,000 against Carnival Corporation, a number reportedly above what plaintiff was asking. According to the plaintiff, Carnival served a California nurse 14 tequila shots over an approximately 8.5-hour period. She later suffered a fall and resulting injuries. She was found 40% negligent to Carnival’s 60%. The case is D.S. v. Carnival Corp., no. 1:24-cv-244258-KMW. Carnival intends to appeal.
• Judge Altman was a guest on The Remnant with Jonah Goldberg to discuss his new book: "Israel on Trial: Examining the History, the Evidence, and the Law." I won't spoil it, but the podcast is available online or through Apple podcasts.

Judge Milton Hirsch shows how it's done

 I can't do this Order justice in a short blog post.  I recommend reading the whole thing here.  A quick summary on this incredible opinion:

The Hialeah Police Department ran a reverse sting. They didn't pose as buyers. They posed as sellers, used a paid informant to lure in would-be buyers, then seized the buyers' cash, kept 75 percent for the department, and paid the informant a 25 percent commission. Judge Hirsch's questioning exposed that the undercover detective handed out free cocaine to close deals. Over seven years, once or twice a month. By the judge's own math at the hearing, that's a quarter kilo of cocaine put onto the streets. "You don't know if it ended up in the hands of children?" the judge asked. "Correct," the detective said. The informant, meanwhile, had a rap sheet that included a decade in federal prison for cocaine trafficking, a conviction for conspiracy to export stolen cars to Colombia, and a stint as a fugitive. The detective who supervised him had never run a background check. "Not in depth," he testified. "Not at all," counsel pressed. "No, ma'am. No, ma'am."

Judge Hirsch found two independent due process violations. First, the police committed crimes to make their case. The legislature exempts law enforcement from drug laws for "bona fide law enforcement purposes," but no statute authorizes handing out free cocaine at an IHOP. No police chief, no governor, no president can authorize that. "If the constitutional promise of due process of law does not protect against such governmental outlawry," he wrote, "it is difficult to imagine what it protects against." Second, the informant was paid a 25 percent bounty on every dollar seized. The Florida Supreme Court struck down a 10 percent bounty arrangement in Glosson as a due process violation. This was two and a half times worse. On top of that, two jurors told the court they would hold it against Elysse if he didn't testify. His lawyers left them on the jury anyway. He didn't testify. They convicted him.

The conclusion is worth reading in full. Judge Hirsch opens with Thomas Erskine, one of the giants of the English bar: "Unjust prosecutions lead to the ruin of all governments. Whoever will look back to the history of the world in general, and of our own particular country, will be convinced that exactly as prosecutions have been cruel and oppressive, and maintained by inadequate and unrighteous evidence, in the same proportion, and by the same means, their authors have been destroyed instead of being supported by them." Then comes the line that will be quoted for years: "Jason Elysse may be a villain, but he is a villain possessed of due process rights." He invokes Hamlet — the State, like King Claudius, is "still possessed of those effects for which it violated the law in this case: the conviction and imprisonment of Jason Elysse. 'That cannot be.'" He closes with Justice Kogan's dissent in a Florida Supreme Court case: "Drugs injure some of us. The loss of liberty injures all." Motion granted.

Here's some of Judge Hirsch's questioning of the police officer (you really missed out if you didn't see Judge Hirsch in action as a lawyer):

BY THE COURT:

Now, you are in narcotics, you said, for seven years?

A:

Correct.

BY THE COURT:

Do I understand you – you tell me. During that seven-year period, you regularly – with some regularity engaged in reverse stings, is that correct?

A:

Correct.

BY THE COURT:

Throughout the seven-year period?

A:

Correct.

BY THE COURT:

And in connection with each of them, you were – as part of playing your role of a drug dealer, you – you gave sample cocaine away.

A:

Yes, I did, sir.

BY THE COURT:

Over the seven-year period, if we said once to twice a month, on average, is that a fair ballpark average?

A:

Yeah.

BY THE COURT:

You tell me.

A:

Yes, sir.

BY THE COURT:

Okay. So if we give out one to two grams of coke one to two times a month, say, eighteen grams – eighteen times would times one to two grams, so between a hundred and twenty-six and two hundred and fifty-two grams over a seven-year period. Would that be correct?

 

BY THE COURT:

So if we say two – a hundred and twenty-six to two hundred and fifty-two – two hundred and fifty would be a quarter of a kilo, correct?

A:

Yes.

BY THE COURT:

So in the seven years you were there, you – you may have given out a quarter of a kilo in cocaine?

A:

Fair – fair to say.

BY THE COURT:

Once you gave it away, there was no way to know what happened to it?

A:

Correct.

BY THE COURT:

You don’t know if the person you gave it to used it?

A:

Correct.

BY THE COURT:

You don’t know if he sold it?

A:

Correct.

BY THE COURT:

You don’t know if he gave it away?

A:

Correct.

BY THE COURT:

You don’t know if it ended up in the hands of children?

A:

Correct.

BY THE COURT:

You made no effort to find out?

A:

Correct.

BY THE COURT:

There was no way to find out?

A:

No, no way.

BY THE COURT:

It was just a risk you took as part of doing this business?

A:

Yes, sir.

Judge Scola's Next Chapter

By John R. Byrne

Judge Scola has only been retired a few months, and we already miss him. But I have some exciting news. The civil lawyers out there will soon be able to get some more Judge Scola in their lives. Beginning in May, the retired judge will be joining the law firm of Coffey Burlington with a focus on alternative dispute resolution. He's going to be a mediator. 

I think Judge Scola is going to be great at this. As a trial judge, he was exceedingly pragmatic and had a knack for cutting to the heart of an issue. Now, he can use those talents to knock some sense into civil lawyers and their clients and get deals done. 

He's not on the website yet but I'm sure he's going to be in high demand once he is. Keep him in mind for your future cases!