Hi kids, it's Monday all over again -- hope you had a nice three-day weekend, celebrating the violent, bloody birth of our nation -- plus hot dogs and fireworks!

Did you catch this story by Alana Roberts on more cuts at Ruden?

I like this part best:

The attorney said talk at the firm is that Ruden is $4 million to $6 million behind its budget goals for the year. The attorney said morale at the firm has declined because of the job and pay cuts and uncertainty about whether there will be more and added that many of the firm’s lawyers are searching for other jobs.

“Everybody from the bottom up thinks it’s a matter of time for them; you don’t know what to believe,” the attorney said.

Now that's the kind of work environment that brings out the best in an attorney -- uncertainty, rumors, fear, a sense of impending doom -- keeps people on their toes, I always say.

Meanwhile, here's an actual positive story about GrayRobinson and attorney Kevin P. Kelly, who gets the love in a Sunday NYT piece(!) on one of his cases.

I knew if I did this long enough this day would come.

As I've said before, I stand ready and willing to write up a great GrayRobinson story if one of you Brickell shmarties will send me some material.

In the meantime I see Billy Shields writes up the School Board selection yesterday of GrayRobinson partner Walter Harvey to serve as General Counsel:

Miami-Dade School Board member Renier Diaz de la Portilla quit his job at GrayRobinson, clearing the way for him to cast the decisive vote today in appointing his former partner Walter Harvey as the school system’s general counsel.

Diaz de la Portilla recused himself from a vote last month to select the district’s new legal counsel, after the DBR raised questions about a possible conflict in his support for Harvey, who worked at the same law firm and served on a public board for which Diaz de la Portilla lobbied.

As a result, the board deadlocked 4-4 between Harvey and Robert Tischenkel, a former Key West city attorney, and decided to start over its selection process.

Harvey serves on the board of trustees of the Public Health Trust, the governing body for the Jackson Health System, and Diaz de la Portilla is a registered lobbyist for Jackson Health System.

Diaz de la Portilla obtained an opinion from the state Commission on Ethics on Friday saying he was within his rights to vote after ending his relationship with GrayRobinson. The commission determined the Jackson relationship was not a conflict. Diaz de la Portilla announced today he was planning to vote to reopen the selection issue and rescind the previous decision to start selection over.

In an interview, Diaz de la Portilla said his decision to leave GrayRobinson had nothing to do with the vote.

Board members Agustin Barrera, Marta Perez and Perla Tabares Hantman voiced opposition, but the most caustic comment came from a member of the public. Board member Lawrence Feldman, who had previously supported Tischenkel was absent.

“You need to get an outside committee” to make this selection, Helen B. Williams, a former teacher, said during the public hearing. “It’s obvious you don’t know how to get anybody other than a crook.”

I happen to think Walter is very qualified, but is this really the right way to select a GC for the School Board?

I happened to be listening to the School Board meeting yesterday, and you couldn't wish that job on me if you tried -- what a bunch of nudnicks, you can keep those billables if you ask me.

But there's got to be a better way than this to instill confidence and transparency into the selection process.

It's not easy being "extremely Floridian."

I like the lawyers at GrayRobinson, and I think they have a smart business model.

So I'm ready to write something positive, if one of you shmarties over on Brickell would send me some good news.

Instead, I have to report on this 11th Circuit opinion issued yesterday, which affirms a Middle District affirmance of a bankruptcy court sanctions order against attorney Peter Ginsberg of Peter R. Ginsberg P.C. (now at Crowell & Moring), and GrayRobinson lawyers Scott Spradley (who doesn't appear to work there anymore) and Maureen Vitucci, who served as local counsel for Ginsberg and also represented several other parties to the bankruptcy.

First off, it's just wrong that any order has to go on for eight pages before the opinion actually starts.

But once it gets going it's an interesting read. Apparently the sanctions order grew out of motion to recuse that the court determined was principally drafted by Ginsberg. In the sanctions order, the bankruptcy judge imposed monetary sanctions of $371k and barred Ginsberg from practicing in the Middle District bankruptcy court for five years.

GrayRobinson then settled their portion of the sanctions for $300k, which the bankruptcy judge approved.

I would read the whole thing, but I was particularly struck by the 11th Circuit's discussion of the tone of Ginsberg's filing and courtroom demeanor, which starts on page 44.

Here's Judge Fay on how Ginsberg treated the bankruptcy judge he had sought to recuse:

Further, Ginsberg was extremely difficult to deal with and disrespectful to
the court. He refused to answer the court's questions, treated the court as an adversary and continually made inflammatory statements. For example, Ginsberg
exaggerated the implications of Judge Briskman’s actions, alleging that his
conduct “relates directly to the judicial processes, namely the integrity of trial
transcripts, and a party’s due process rights and liberty.” (Recusal Mot. at 19.)

Ginsberg opened the Recusal Hearing by claiming: "Your honor has compromised my health, your Honor has compromised my immune system." (Recusal Tr. Vol. I
at 5.) Ginsberg also used accusatory, unsupported language in the three petitions
for writ of mandamus; asserted that Judge Briskman faced “potential career ending
punishment”; and accused him of trying to surreptitiously “brush the matter under
the carpet” so he could “retain authority over these very important issues of
judicial and professional conduct." (Response Br. at 16.)

Ginsberg also purposefully pursued recusal very publicly. After learning of
Hudson's Complaint, Ginsberg did not first request a private hearing with Judge
Briskman and all counsel in these cases to address his concerns, nor did he file the
Recusal Motion under seal (ignoring the preference for confidentiality inherent in
the Judicial Council Rules discussed below). Instead, the first time Ginsberg
raised the Complaint was in a 31-page accusatory motion which used the term
"investigation" twelve times and referenced adverse rulings fifty-four times.
Ginsberg also immediately brought the Recusal Motion to the attention of the
district court. He filed three petitions for a writ of mandamus with the district
court while the Recusal Motion was still pending.

In our view, Ginsberg’s dogged pursuit of a frivolous claim indicates bad
faith.

"Your Honor compromised my immune system"??

Seriously? That's really your opening, Peter?

Take some Naturebee and buck up, soldier.

Hey, does your firm still pay for that courthouse news roundup of new filings?

Mine stopped, plus we fired 4 attorneys and 32 staffers, but let me tell you -- the Gevalia coffee is still delicious!

Anyway, I just came across this one from the Tampa area, forwarded by a dedicated reader:

Professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty action claiming the defendants failed to settle an auto negligence claim against the plaintiff within the amount of available insurance coverage, resulting in a lawsuit with a verdict of $26 million. At the time of the crash, the opposing party's insurance counsel was also employed by the defendant, GrayRobinson, resulting in a conflict of interest and breach of lawyer-client confidentiality in regards to the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff was advised to sign a purported assignment, as the defendants knowingly withheld knowledge of the assignment of the insurer subrogation rights. The assignment improperly placed the interests of the defendants ahead of the plaintiff.

Sheesh, people make such a big deal about conflicts nowadays!

And I really enjoyed this Alana Roberts story about litigation fees and how clients and firms are dealing with them. I liked this quote:

Clients also are taking a closer look at the cost-alternative dispute resolution such as arbitration and mediation, said Miami litigator Jose Astigarraga, chairman of Miami-based Astigarraga Davis and co-chair of the event.

Mediation I understand and agree with. But arbitration, Jose? Really? I know that's been your thing, but come on.

In fact I would argue the trend is the opposite -- more businesses with arbitration clauses are foregoing mandatory arbitration to litigate their claims in court, where they don't have to pay three arbitrators $600 an hour to preside over the same discovery disputes that the taxpayers pay our judges to worry about.

Also, Marty Steinberg says move along, there's nothing to see here:

But litigator Marty Steinberg, managing partner of Hunton & Williams’ Miami office, said alternatives to the billable hour model haven’t caught on.

“There are all kinds of arrangements that have been tried; none of them have replaced the hourly rate,” he said. “I generally think clients that are satisfied with the service at the end of the day are fairly satisfied with the fees.”

Steinberg said he sees more clients pushing for budgets that offer detailed estimates of potential costs of litigation and are basing their decisions on those estimates.

“Clients now are insisting on budgets that identify each of the steps and estimate the cost of each step,” he said.

None have caught on, or none have caught on...at Hunton & Williams?

And everybody, raise your hands if you've ever done a litigation budget for a heavily-litigated case that has proceeded as budgeted.

And yet we still do them.....

So a birdie who also happens to possess superb legal skills has advised that it's time for Leyza to finally leave the boardroom and face the music -- the "extremely Floridian" GrayRobinson was officially canned as receiver in connection with the Sun Capital brouhaha.

Order forthcoming, I understand.

In unrelated news, did you see this suit over law firms allegedly marking up legal research "costs":

A California plaintiffs attorney has filed a lawsuit against a New York-based law firm on behalf of a former client of the firm for what she claims is a hidden but widespread practice within the legal profession: law firms secretly profiting off legal research fees by overcharging clients.

Consumer protection attorney Patricia Meyer filed a suit against New York's Chadbourne & Parke on March 2 for allegedly overcharging J. Virgil Waggoner, a Texas businessman, by several thousands of dollars for computerized legal research. His bill was roughly $20,000 for the research, she said, but it should have been closer to $5,000. Waggoner v. Chadbourne & Parke, No. BC408693 (Los Angeles Co., Calif., Super. Ct.).

Hmm, never heard of such a thing.

That does remind me, though, I need to speak with Catherine about some billing issues.

When I first read this story about a potential conflict of interest involving the "extremely Floridian" GrayRobinson that is being asserted by Proskauer Rose, my first reaction was:

These firms still have South Florida offices?

Wow, pretty neat!

But can anyone make heads or tails out of it:

GrayRobinson partner Leyza Blanco in Miami should not be appointed receiver of a Boca Raton health care company linked to an alleged $550 million hedge fund fraud because her firm has represented an affiliated company, one of the principals said in a court filing.
Blanco is the receiver for Naples-based Founding Partners Capital Management and asked to be named receiver of Sun Capital, which along with related companies received the bulk of Founding Partners’ money.

An affidavit filed by Howard Koslow, a principal with Sun Capital, Sun Capital Healthcare and Promise Healthcare attached a copy of a 2007 GrayRobinson contract with Promise for legal and lobbying services on Florida health licensing. Koslow said GrayRobinson has been paid $150,000 for its representation and also helped with licensing in Louisiana.

Koslow opposes the appointment of a receiver for the Sun Capital companies. But if one is ordered, he said it shouldn’t be the same one handling Founding Partners.

Blanco was in a meeting when contacted Wednesday and had no comment by deadline.

Leyza, listen to me -- stay in that meeting.

If your best defense is that the work for Promise was only lobbying services and not legal in nature, you better order in some food and hunker down until you come up with something slightly more creative (and a lot more credible).

Remember that old joke about chutzpah?

Something along those lines may or may not come to mind when reading this motion for fees filed by GrayRobinson in the Middle District.

Even after a contested battle in which Leyza F. Blanco (I like the new picture!) was removed as receiver over an alleged undisclosed conflict of interest, it appears that the firm still seeks to be compensated for the work done on behalf of the receivership.

The firm has, however, taken out all the time related to fighting the conflict of interest issue and has even offered a 20% reduction in fees sought, bringing their request to $122,594.75.

(This one-time only offer will expire if not accepted by 5 p.m Friday; please see terms and conditions for further details.)

BTW -- hope you don't mind, but I have billed .4 for "receipt and review of motion for fees."

Don't worry, I'm willing to take 20 percent off too!

What do you all think -- should the receivership benefit from the legal work done on its behalf before the alleged conflict issue was resolved, or should GrayRobinson suck this one up and move on?