Brian Tannebaum points out that there's not a single lawyer in South Florida who has stepped up to vouch for the character or personal integrity of Scott Rothstein.

Think about that.

Amid all the near-constant chatter in the South Florida legal community I've not bumped into a single judge or lawyer (let alone a client) who has said -- "hold on, let's see what the evidence is. That's not the Scotty I know."

Even Bill Scherer, who just a year ago was retaining Scott's firm to be his lawyer ("[t]hat should tell you something") is now assembling lawsuits on behalf of investors.

And this is absolutely the wrong time to be a lawyer in trouble in South Florida. Between judicial fundraisers, receptions, seminars, lunches, bar events, picnics etc. there is virtually no time to do anything other than continually meet with the same judges and lawyers and discuss -- what else -- Scott Rothstein.

When I wrote back in September about Scott's personal obsession with associate facial hair, I suspected the reason he offered for this bizarre management characteristic to be contrived and oh too convenient -- an "unnamed retired federal judge" who appeared to be a prop in some apocryphal Scott Rothstein anecdote about how obsessing over associate hair growth is a good thing:

Rothstein, who teaches law at Nova Southeastern University, recalls the first time he saw style become an issue in court.

"I'll never forget walking into the courtroom of a now-retired federal judge here in South Florida. And opposing counsel came in and the first words out of the judge's mouth were to ask the other attorney why his shoes were so scuffed and dirty. It's for reasons like that that I `politely terrorize' the lawyers in my firm.''

What the hail is he talking about? What judge could this possibly be? You're lucky to even be in front of a federal judge for a hearing, and yet this judge is going to spend that time discussing the cleanliness level of a lawyer's shoes? I suppose it's possible but it seems pretty unlikely.

Of course now everybody has pretty much concluded Scott was a serial albeit creative liar.

Oh hail I'm shutting things down and hitting the surf, kids. In honor of Scott I am bringing seventeen expensive waterproof watches, the usual surveillance equipment I always go windsurfing with, and something special -- a solid gold ankle-holstered Derringer, the kind Burl Ives wore in that great noir Western, Day of the Outlaw.

Perhaps Big Burl is where Scott got the inspiration?

(Mine is strictly for recreational use only btw -- if you use it right.)

In the meantime folks, eat lots of cupcakes but still watch your diet and get lots of rest, and put your hands on something exceptionally worthwhile -- life is too precious to waste.

Have a nice weekend everybody!

How many news cycles can this story dominate?

Scott, this scandal has officially joined the list of Things That I Hate -- in no particular order:

1. Flatbread;
2. The Case That Dare Not Speak Its Name;
3. Any current or former lovers of Drew Barrymore;
4. Metadata;
5. Flavored vodka;
6. Jeremy Piven and/or Brett Ratner;
7. Pesto wraps;
8. Certain Herald TV critics (Glenn was right about V however -- it rocked).

Oh the melodrama:

Rothstein mused that he had three options -- kill himself, live life "on the lam as a fugitive'' or go to prison and risk being killed there because he had made enemies, said the law firm's co-founder, Stuart Rosenfeldt, according to the website. Rosenfeldt talked to Rothstein, urging him to "choose life.''

I bet that's the first time a George Michael T shirt saved a high-powered lawyer from suicide.

Scott seems to possess a perfect storm of characteristics -- talented yet narcissistic, delusions of grandeur, persecution complex, excessive displays of wealth even by South Florida standards, megalomania and a sense that the entire world revolves around him -- in other words, your typical successful South Florida trial lawyer.

Consider the stories coming out -- private elevators, a car fetish, carrying a gun in an ankle holster, blowing $10 million a month.

Indeed, look at the comments section of Bob Norman's "Jewish Avenger" story -- there is definitely something not right about the way Scott engages Norman.

Are there some chemical or other disorders at work here?

Now that he's down, it seems everyone has a negative Rothstein story -- yet some of these folks sat on their feelings or refused to act on them, no?

Roger Stone now says Scott "never added up"; Bill Scherer says "[w]e all wondered where the money came from"; Michael Goldberg says Scott's spending "made no sense." Sunshine Charlie says "I think everybody heard rumors."

My friend Brian Tannebaum wonders how in this recession a firm can go from seven lawyers to seventy and no one questions why or how?

He relates a story of how he drove 40 minutes to meet with Scott for lunch, only to be totally stiffed:

I never met Scott Rothstein. He ducked out a few minutes before our lunch a few years ago. His secretary telling me and his colleague, who set up the lunch: "he went to lunch." There was no further inquiry as we were not entitled to even be standing by his office, an "off-limits" area of the firm. Instead I went to lunch with some other lawyers in the firm who felt they needed to take pity on me for my wasted 40 minute drive, all of them telling me in response to the unprofessional behavior of their king: "I'm not surprised." "That's Scott."

These out-of-control legal types, of which I know many, all have enablers -- those who justify, excuse, or clean up the mess left by the large lives of the bosses they serve, and who not coincidentally benefit from being near to the flame.

Now we know that a seventy lawyer firm, with only two equity partners, really only had one -- as Stuart Rosenfeldt apparently had no signatory authority on certain firm accounts and there is suddenly only $500k left in the firm's operating account.

Judge Streitfeld called Rosenfeldt "clueless" about the firm's finances at a hearing yesterday. Stuart has since invested a large chunk of his own money to keep salaries paid and the firm afloat.

There are lots of victims here, including many many fine lawyers at RRA, but a few of us in the South Florida legal and business communities should probably step up and acknowledge we could have been a bit more proactive on what some apparently suspected all along.

Hi kids, here they are:

1. I just had new speakers installed at my office and I plan to blare Quadrophenia at excessive volumes so the new associates stay way the hail out of my way (note to sweet kitchen lady -- you can still bring in the cafecito at 10:30).

2. It's National Constitution Day so I will be quietly reading the entire moldy oldie (while of course listening to Quadrophenia at excessive volumes).

3. I need time to compose an awesomely concise, 140-character or less Twitter message to my pals Hector Chichoni and Jared Beck, informing them that Twitter is an interim, transitional technology that will be about as relevant in 10 years as AOL Message Boards are today.

4. I'm still processing the arse-kicking that Brian Tannebaum's Criminal Offense delivered to the Well-Hung Jury.

5. I have finally found an instance where there can be no doubt that Iqbal has been properly applied.

BTW, the "lawyer" representing the plaintiff in the above case called the federal judge -- a George W. Bush appointee -- a "puppet" of Obama "just like in the Soviet Union" but did walk it back some by helpfully suggesting that "not every judge is as corrupt as Judge Land."

(Thank goodness she didn't post these comments on a blog!)

6. What else -- I'm going windsurfing.