Over at Rump's place, they have been discussing for days this whole Milt Hirsch brouhaha.

It's sorta like the criminal defense bar's version of the endless Mr. Clucky coverage -- it's catnip to those JBB lawyers.

I've stayed away from the story, mostly because I have nothing to add as a civil litigator beyond that I know and respect Milton, plus the dude really knows how to rock a full beard.

On those two criteria alone, Milt will make an excellent judge.

But Riptide has opened up a civil angle to the story, in that none other than the Gainesville Grinder, the Media Man With A Plan, yes -- I'm talking Tom Julin himself(!) -- is representing Milt's accuser, Sean Casey, on a pro bono basis.

In a letter to New Times' Francisco Alvarado, Mr. Casey writes:

Please contact Mr. Thomas Julin (305-810-2516), a partner in the law firm of Hunton & Williams, a widely respected media attorney who is representing me pro bono. Yesterday, Mr. Julin effectively argued in Court against the sealing of the documents on legal and public policy grounds. There is a major legal issue here. The judge granted more time and set an August 13 date for the next hearing. I know you spoke with Mr. Julin once before. He would be more than willing to give you a statement on the issues. The prosecution is asking the court to seal tapes that are crucial evidence in my case and would help me get a new and more fair trial.

That's some serious firepower and a superb lawyer to have in your corner, Mr. Casey.

I suspect we have not heard the last of this one -- hail, it may even outlast the epic Reverend Cutié coverage.

(Ok, unless the tapes reveal Milt sticking his hands down a sexy latina's bikini bottom, it probably won't hit peak Cutié Crisis Coverage levels.)

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.....

Well you know what they say -- "Halloween is for windsurfing" -- so I am going to cut out of here early and catch some glistening, chocolate-covered waves all afternoon.

Before I go, I see my crazy-eyed zoftig birther mama caught some more federal judicial flak today, this time coming from C.D. CA Judge David O. Carter, who wrote:

"Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic."

No, it just means you too had a little visit from an olive-skinned Eric Holder lookalike at the courthouse coffeeshop.

(BTW, I had no idea Alan Keyes was a plaintiff in the above suit -- talk about the loony leading the crazy.)

Then we have Hunton & Williams, which filed an odd suit on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce against some pranksters who spoofed their position on climate change the other day.

You can read Hunton lawyer Richard L. Wyatt Jr.'s masterwork here.

Someone remind me -- what's that new opinion on pleading standards again?

In local news, Coral Springs attorney Scott Salomon was finally disbarred.

He certainly gave us plenty of good material over the years (see here and here) so we wish him (not to mention his former clients) farewell and godspeed.

I don't know about you, but like any good deputy assistant AG, I too have a goody bag of things "just in case." But dude -- in a cemetery?

Guess it is that time of the year.

And like many of you, I thought of some costume ideas so I put a few up there for your consideration -- guess which one I'm going as? (NO HINTS!)

Finally, remember whatever you do this weekend to think young, get a good night's rest, and since it's Halloween, get your blood on.

Have a great weekend everybody!

Remember when Bowman Brown nearly had his own Teevee show, appearing all over the media and sharing that now-apocryphal "brush with Stanford" anecdote? I love the anecdote personally, but even I started to wonder when I turned on iCarly and dang it! -- there he was again....

But it is such a great story. To borrow from Gore Vidal for a moment, the art of a good lawyer war story is to craft something that manages to burnish your own skills and competence at some other lawyer or judge's expense.

By that measure Bowman has hit it out of the park.

Still, there was always this lingering unanswered question:

"What he wanted to do was just not workable in my view, it was not anything I wanted to be near," Brown said. "I told him that I couldn't help him, so he went across the street and found somebody who could and set up in Miami."

So -- just who is Bowman talking about??

Now comes this tantalizing clue:

As part of his effort to locate and recover Stanford assets, Ralph Janvey, a court-appointed receiver, asked a judge to force the law firm Hunton & Williams LLP to turn over all records of its work for Stanford International Bank, according to papers filed March 24 in federal court in Dallas.

The Richmond, Virginia-based law firm rejected a Feb. 24 request to ship the receiver original files and billing records for Stanford’s foreign businesses, including the Antigua-based bank and operations in Ecuador, Panama and Grenada, according to Janvey.

“The Hunton & Williams law firm has declined to relinquish possession and control of records that are part of the receivership estate,” Janvey said in the filing. “Information regarding valuable assets belonging to the bank and other offshore Stanford entities may be found in the files.”

The law firm and one of its Miami-based lawyers, Carlos Loumiet, questioned Janvey’s jurisdiction over Houston-based Stanford’s foreign records. Janvey, appointed to recover assets to repay victims, said Hunton & Williams is providing only the requested documents for Stanford’s U.S. businesses.

We previously wrote about Carlos here (he was completely acquitted, by the way).

Now Carlos appears to only be representing his firm regarding the subpoena, from what I can tell.

But does this bring us any closer to solving the mystery?

Well, consider me stunned.

I am shocked -- shocked mind you -- that in this excellent Herald article on Carlos Loumiet and his disgraced client R. Allen Stanford, there is nary a single mention of The World's Finest Legal Anecdote.

Bowman, you broke my heart.

Still, it's a blockbuster article, and certainly leads one to think there may be some potential liability down the road somewhere.

It's funny how the world can turn in a minute. Here you have Carlos, leaving GT to go to Hunton, and undoubtedly part of that is an evaluation of his book of business. So at that moment having R. Allen Stanford as a major client is a big deal, and attractive to any firm that would want to hire Carlos away from GT.

Now, that client doesn't look so hot:

Though not under criminal investigation, Greenberg Traurig is facing a legal review of its actions on this tiny island that was the center of his banking kingdom.

The court-appointed receiver trying to recover money for victims is demanding records of the legal work provided to the disgraced banker -- including that of Greenberg. The effort is the latest by the receiver to untangle the complex deals spun by Stanford as well as the conduct of his lawyers.

The demand for the records has put a rare spotlight on Greenberg Traurig and another firm, Hunton & Williams, which now holds the records.

``I'm sure one of the things they will look at is what did Greenberg Traurig know, and when did they know it, and did they have any liability?'' said Ross Gaffney, a former FBI agent who investigated Stanford.

Greenberg Traurig's effort to help Stanford in 1998 was one in a string of instances in which the Florida law firm propelled Stanford's business interests and helped rescue him from crisis.

The Miami Herald sought interviews with five lawyers who represented Stanford while working for the law firm, but only two responded.

Those lawyers, citing confidentiality concerns, declined comment, saying they were simply giving legal support and were unaware of any illegal schemes by Stanford.

Cesar Alvarez, the firm's chief executive officer, also declined to be interviewed.

Taking it a step further, The Business Insider wonders whether this all sounds vaguely familiar:

Judge David Godbey in Houston is expected to decide whether the firm must comply.

Regardless, we wonder if John Grisham is taking note. With a few embellishments -- an extortion here, a murder there -- he could have a another big book.

Come on. I don't think this comparison is remotely fair.

For example, there is no one at GT that looks anything like Tom Cruise.

(Gene Hackman, maybe.)

It does, however, raise an interesting question -- who would you cast as Cesar?

Oh Bowman Brown, why have you left us all alone?

Where will we get all of our super easy Stanford scandal posts? Will we have to put some effort into this blog again? Oh hail.

Let’s take a wistful look back at the evolution of a media anecdote writ large:

Our story begins on February 17, when the breaking news of the scandal emerged, with this quote from Brown:

''The Miami operation was an important focal point for international investors, especially from Latin America'' said Bowman Brown, a Miami attorney, who has several clients who bought CDs from the loosely regulated Antiguan bank. ``The consequences, particularly in Venezuela and also in Colombia and other Caribbean jurisdictions, will be significant.''

By Sunday, February 22, however, this blockbuster anecdote appeared in the Palm Beach Post:

During the 1980s, Stanford came calling at the office of Miami attorney Bowman Brown, a respected banking lawyer with the Shutts & Bowen law firm. Stanford needed help setting up a new venture.

"He wanted to set up an offshore operation with an office in Miami that would not be regulated by U.S. regulators," Brown said.

Suspicious, Brown declined the job.

Stanford ended up going elsewhere for legal help, and established the Miami office of Stanford International Bank of Antigua. The bank grew to three floors of an office building in downtown Miami. But around town, the Stanford bank's credibility wasn't high.

"It was an open secret in the banking community that the business model wasn't right," Brown said. "If you're paying above market rates and have a small accounting firm in a jurisdiction where they don't heavily regulate banks, and the process involves putting money into a black box and it comes out enhanced ... something is wrong."

About nine months ago, Brown said he saw Stanford in the elevator of his building, and Stanford bragged about the billions of dollars under management. But Brown got the last laugh. Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Stanford with orchestrating an $8 billion fraud selling high-yield certificates of deposit in his Antiguan bank. The SEC froze the assets of three of the companies Stanford controls: the bank; Stanford Group Co., a broker-dealer; and Stanford Capital Management, an investment adviser.

All Brown can say now is: "I am so glad I took a pass."

Ahh, a delicious war story, one of the best in my opinion.

The story of Bowman's Nostradamus-like good judgment was picked up everywhere, with inevitable TV interviews, and by the time the DBR picked it up, the story had this additional detail:

"What he wanted to do was just not workable in my view, it was not anything I wanted to be near," Brown said. "I told him that I couldn't help him, so he went across the street and found somebody who could and set up in Miami."

Now we know Shutts & Bowen (and Stanford's offices) are located in the Miami Center. And the American Lawyer reported this about Stanford's counsel:

One issue in particular, though, is relevant for the Am Law community: that an attorney for the company, Thomas Sjoblom of Proskauer Rose, sniffed out the fraud, withdrew his representation, and told federal investigators he essentially took back everything he had told to them in recent weeks, according to Bloomberg.

Sjoblom didn't return calls for comment, nor did Richard Razook of Hunton & Williams, another attorney reportedly representing Stanford.

Richard's office is not "across the street," it's well down the street on Brickell, and thus the mystery remains.

So by my estimation there are at least two more news pegs to this great anecdote -- (1) just who Bowman was vaguely alluding to without really identifying anyone in particular; and (2) the indignant denial by whoever the lawyer is that Bowman didn't specifically identify.

Come on folks, these posts don't write themselves. Give a brother a hand, will ya?

I see Judge Huck refused to enjoin Santander from contacting their Madoff-affected clients and offering individual resolutions:

About 70 percent of Banco Santander SA customers offered compensation for losses linked to Bernard Madoff have decided to accept it, lawyers for Spain’s biggest bank told a Miami court.

Clients of the Santander, Spain-based bank are agreeing to the offer because it gives them “something in hand, they are getting something today,” Sam Danon, a lawyer representing the company in a suit filed by investors in federal court in Miami, said at a hearing today.

. . . .

U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck in Miami refused to order Santander officials to stop all “direct and indirect” contact with clients whose money was invested in products linked to Madoff while lawyers seek to organize investors’ cases against the bank.

Congrats Sam, nice win btw.

Here's the part I like. Contrast the two statements being made about this development from counsel for the putative class based in Madrid, Fernando Zunzunegui, and from Michael Hanzman:

Fernando Zunzunegui, a Madrid-based lawyer representing Santander customers considering claims against the bank over Madoff, is among lawyers and analysts who say the preferred shares it’s offering may only be worth a fifth of the value of the clients’ original investments.

And here's what Michael says:

“I’ve been advising people who call me about the settlement to weigh and decide if it’s a good deal for them,” said Michael Hanzman, a Miami-based lawyer representing investors who have sued the bank over Madoff losses.

I have to say, I'm with Mike on that one.