Boy it's a crazy day out there for South Florida lawyers, huh?

First there's this blockbuster story from the always intrepid Julie Kay taking a look at the John Leighton-Ira Leesfield breakup.

Among the more interesting allegations is that Ira installed spy software, bought lots of fancy things, and used his shop to bankroll Hillary's Florida campaign -- in other words, a day in the life at my firm.

Apparently, however, this was somehow problematic for Leigton:

The relationship nosedived when Leesfield failed to turn over the firm’s financial records shortly after Leighton became a name partner, the suit said. Leighton grew concerned about the firm’s expenses, overhead and compensation. At the same time, Leesfield would continually lecture Leighton about curbing his expenses.

“In 2007 and 2008, Leesfield spent several months away from the law firm and the active practice of law pursuing personal interests including serving as the finance chairman for Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign,” the complaint states. “Much of the time that Leesfield actually spent in the office was used to solicit contributions for Hillary Clinton, and Leesfield as it turns out was using the law firm’s resources including staff, offices, postage, office supplies and other items to fund Leesfield’s personal political interests for Hillary Clinton causes.”

Leesfield “became confrontational, dictatorial and verbally abusive” when Leighton asked about firm finances, the complaint said.

Hall does not deny Leesfield spent a lot of time working for Clinton.

“He has a lot of causes he believes in, and he has earned the right to work on them,” Hall said.

Leighton suspected the firm was paying for Leesfield’s personal expenses including “vacation homes, parties, meals, entertainment, travel for himself and his family, clothing, luxury items and social, political and personal activities that were completely unrelated to the law firm’s business,” the complaint said.

Leighton also accuses Leesfield of putting his daughter on the firm’s payroll when she worked only sporadically and renting office space he and his wife personally owned at rates above fair market value.

Hall said Leesfield’s daughter, who does public relations for the firm, is actually underpaid for the work she does and Leighton, not Leesfield, is the big spender. “He had to have a $110,000 car,” Leesfield said.

Leesfield installed computer surveillance and keystroke logging technology to spy on his employees, the complaint said. By last December, Leesfield determined Leighton had obtained access to the firm’s records and confronted him.

“You work for me,” he yelled, according to the complaint. “This is my firm!”

Again, I pretty much yell something along those lines at somebody every single day.

In fact, in honor of Ira I just screamed those exact words at the lady who brought me a cafecito a few moments ago (of course she snickered and muttered something about my mother playing bingo or pingo or she's a penguin? -- I didn't really pay attention.)

You can read Leighton's complaint here.

Then we have Hank Adorno's response to a motion to strike his affirmative defenses in the bar proceedings, where he says Judge Peter Lopez must have known it was an individual settlement because otherwise we all would have had to have a fairness hearing. Even though it was for $7 million bucks!

(Nice negotiating, btw, Joe Arriola.)

I also enjoyed the part (page 9) where Hank explains that the only reason his firm did not pursue substitute class reps to carry on the class case after the individual settlement was because his partner Mitchell Bloomberg was undergoing aggressive treatment for lung cancer.

Also Sandy Bohrer has vouched for the individual settlement and Hank passed a polygraph test!

You can read the response here.

Sheesh -- and Friday's not even over yet, peoples.

That's the lede in this solid article on South Florida lawyers starting to make deals again, by the always intrepid Julie Kay:

Jim Meyer, a partner at Harper Meyer in Miami, said it feels like ``the dam has burst.''

''The first few months of the year, everyone seemed to be in a holding pattern,'' he said. ``It seemed that people had to start doing business again eventually. There are a lot of pent-up deals from the first quarter. Financing does still seem to be the challenge.''

Meyer is hoping to secure the financing on several deals he's working on using the Interamerican Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of the United States -- banks that offer programs in which loans are backed by the government.

That's right, Jim -- only businesses and banks should be able to rely on the federal government to assume their risk and back their deals.

NO PUBLIC OPTION!!

(The foregoing message brought to you by the US Chamber of Commerce).

Don't you love it when lawyers make statements to the media that inadvertently hurt their cases?

I wonder if my friend Luis Delgado stepped into it here:

A Venezuelan investor is accusing a global insurance broker of playing a key role in Allen Stanford's banking empire, saying the company enticed thousands to invest in now worthless securities.

The federal suit filed Friday in Miami alleges that Willis Group Holdings provided letters to investors vouching for the financial integrity of Stanford's certificates of deposit, now the focus of a massive federal fraud case.

Filed as a class-action by Venezuelan resident Reinaldo Ranni, the suit says the global insurance broker issued ``safety and soundness'' letters that were given to clients in Miami and elsewhere.

Ranni says he invested more than $2.7 million after he was shown the letters at Stanford's Miami office.

``My client would not have placed deposits with Stanford if he had not been given the letters,'' said Miami attorney Luis Delgado.

``The claims were absolutely false.''

Hmm, I'm just a country lawyer and all, but in a class action do you really want to assert individual reliance by each investor on each letter?

The inestimable Julie Kay breaks news as usual regarding the shameful effort by prosecutors in Alex Acosta's office to trap uber-lawyer David O. Markus, which resulted in an explosive $600k sanctions order by Judge Gold:

The three prosecutors themselves are appealing. Josefsberg and Pearson filed a notice of appeal for Hoffman, and Martinez and colleagues Maureen Lefebvre and Susan Tarbe filed a motion on behalf of Cronin.

Martinez said he will argue that Cronin and the others were wrongly denied the opportunity to speak at the hearing when they were sanctioned.

“They were excluded and didn’t have the opportunity to put on their case,” he said. “Just as [defense attorney David O.] Markus wants due process rights, we feel Mr. Cronin is entitled to his due process rights. It is appropriate for him to be heard by the judge.”

Gilbert has not yet filed a notice of appeal. Becerra, who moved to Greenberg from the U.S. attorney’s office, has taken the case pro bono, according to her secretary. Becerra is out of the office on parental leave.

When asked whether Martinez, a former Miami U.S. attorney, was representing him pro bono, Cronin said, “I’d rather not answer that.”

Oh man, that's rich -- was Sean so flustered by Julie's question that all he could do was say "I'd rather not answer" -- thereby answering by not answering? Was he not prepared to handle that inquiry? What's the big deal about going pro bono in the first place? (Note -- corrected, thx).

BTW, I love that these prosecutors are now pleading for due process -- which of course they deserve -- when it was apparent from the sanctions order that due process was not exactly at the top of their trial to-do list.

Also, didn't Cronin testify (lamely) for several hours before Judge Gold anyways? As the Judge repeatedly told him, "tell the truth, Mr. Cronin."

Plus, even my buddy Paul Calli gets quoted!

And, in a surprise move, so does Kendall Coffey.

Walter and Donald, sing this one out please.....

Ok ok, several of you have asked for my thoughts on this Business Monday look at local law firms and how they are faring during these tough economic times.

Here's what I took away from the story:

1. Emily Blunt is cute as a button and really shines in The Great Buck Howard; and

2. The article doesn't really break any new ground.

Wait a minute -- I take that back.

I also learned:

3. There is or used to be a real legal specialty involving "legal review of car dealer ads" and that Hollywood attorney Fred Hochszstein was apparently its resident guru.

Seriously, I know this is the work of intrepid reporter Julie Kay, but to me it was mostly a recap of stories already reported elsewhere by Julie and reframed for a more general audience.

Julie -- stay away from the Herald! They plainly left all your really juicy stuff on the cutting room floor. Then again, how else to make room for Glenn Garvin's tough, unflinching expose of Bill O?

Here's another reason the otherwise great Julie should stay away from the Herald -- take a look at the comments to Julie's piece. It makes the Herald letters page seem simply erudite and sophisticated by comparison.

The always intrepid Julie Kay gets to the bottom of the $4.9 million malpractice verdict against Becker & Poliakoff.

Apparently, Becker & Poliakoff stepped in to pursue malpractice claims against Ruden McClosky:

The roots of the discrimination case began when Young and 55 other plaintiffs sued BellSouth, alleging failure to promote blacks to management.

Their attorneys at Ruden McClosky settled the case for $1.6 million with BellSouth in 1997, according to an exhibit accompanying the malpractice lawsuit filed against Becker & Poliakoff on behalf of Young. Plaintiffs split $300,000, or about $5,000 each. The plaintiffs later learned the settlement agreement called for Ruden to receive $120,000 a year for four years, enter a consulting agreement with BellSouth and agree to file no employment cases against the company for a year.

Angered by that outcome, the plaintiffs hired Becker & Poliakoff to sue Ruden for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.

Ruden settled for $8 million in 2002, and the proceeds were distributed among 54 plaintiffs, according to memos that became part of the court record in Young’s malpractice case against Becker & Poliakoff. Carl Schuster, managing partner of Ruden McClosky, declined comment, citing a confidentiality agreement with all parties.

“We have been sworn to secrecy,” he said. “It’s bad enough that Becker & Poliakoff got hit with a $4.9 million judgment. We have a settlement agreement, and I could be sued for violating it by saying anything.”

So Becker's firm got involved in order to sue Ruden for malpractice, which settled for big money, and then itself got sued for malpractice.

A few things interested me about the story.

One -- B&P's alleged net worth:

Additionally, Palm Beach Gardens forensic economist Bernard Pettingil Jr. testified about Young’s projected wage losses at BellSouth. He estimated Becker & Poliakoff’s revenue for the last five years totaled $49 million per year. Zobel asked for Becker & Poliakoff’s total net worth, which the expert witness estimated to be $10 million.

They're only worth about 10 million, after taking in $49 million per year for the last five years?

Also, consider the settlement negotiations:

In mediation, Becker & Poliakoff offered to settle for $25,000, but Young walked out, Zobel said. A week later, the offer was raised to $100,000. In trial, it rose to $500,000. By closing arguments, Becker & Poliakoff offered $900,000, and Young turned them down, Zobel said in an interview.

Jurors awarded Young $4.9 million, including $4.5 million in punitive damages and $394,000 in lost wages on Sept. 16. The punitive damages are especially harsh for Becker & Poliakoff as malpractice insurance generally does not cover these types of damages.

25k at mediation?

I know it's hard to value punis for settlement purposes, but these are very experienced lawyers and they didn't evaluate and quantify this risk? Or if they did they couldn't bring themselves to offer more than $100k before trial?

I also like Alan's explanation of what went wrong:

“Apparently, the jury did not believe me, the supervising lawyer who no longer works for us and came from Mississippi to testify and the written documents that supported everything we said,” he said. “Instead, they believed a rogue lawyer who had been disbarred.”

Hmm, what exactly do you think that might mean?

Forget Tom Scott, if I were Judge Gold I would appoint the intrepid Julie Kay to figure out what the hail is happening here:

“I don’t know why it has risen to this level,” said Concepcion, lead counsel for the Elliotts. “This is one of those unfortunate cases where the animosity has spilled over to the attorneys.”

He tried to withdraw as counsel for lack of payment, but Gold refused to let him drop out.

Concepcion, who is facing a contempt hearing Sept. 18, is accused of lying to Gold by saying in open court that the Elliotts did not have any U.S. bank accounts. It later turned out they did and paid Concepcion from one.

In his declaration filed Wednesday opposing the plaintiffs’ motion for contempt and sanctions, Concepcion maintained he did not know his law firm received wire transfers from the Elliotts out of a Miami bank. Elliott testified that all his U.S. bank accounts had been closed.

“Neither I nor attorneys at CSM typically know the source of a wire transfer,” Concepcion said in an interview.

Concepcion’s co-counsel also filed declarations explaining why they should not be held in contempt or sanctioned.

Plaintiff attorneys in the case are also on the defensive. In documents filed last week, Concepcion asked for the disqualification of both Diaz and Piloto. He accuses Diaz of conspiring with Piloto, whom he terms Diaz’s girlfriend and the mother of his child, to file a separate lawsuit without disclosing their personal connection.

The purpose of a suit filed by a different attorney was to conceal the fact that Diaz was representing both sets of investors, according to the disqualification motion. Because one set of investors included EMI sales agents, Concepcion argues it was a conflict of interest for Diaz to represent both sets, which have been dubbed “the innocent investors” and the “impact investors,” who are sales agents including James Catledge.

“Diaz used Piloto as a front to avoid the appearance of impropriety arising from a conflict of interest between his then-clients, the innocent investors, and Catledge and his impact agent investors,” the motion states.

The agents have been sued separately throughout the country for participating in the alleged Ponzi scheme, according to the lawsuit. Concepcion’s motion claims Catledge conspired with Diaz to exploit a group of investors to take over their lawsuit, seize control of the Elliotts’ real estate and keep the agents from being lawsuit targets.

Concepcion argued that the two lawsuits mirror each other and clearly show the two firms are working hand in hand on the cases.

He also alleges attorneys for the investors took an expired asset-freeze order, issued by Gold, to the Turks and Caicos Islands and used it to obtain a temporary restraining order from the court there.

“After the Turks and Caicos court learned of the plaintiffs’ deceit, on April 9, 2009, the court discharged the TRO, stating, ‘This case causes me some disquiet,’ ” according to Concepcion’s motion.

The restraining orders froze the Elliotts’ assets and endangered the completion of renovations at a resort in the Dominican Republic, Concepcion stated. As a direct result, a bank is set to foreclose on several resorts owned by the Elliotts.

In a joint response to the disqualification motion, Diaz and Piloto called Concepcion’s allegations “gratuitious, speculative and completely devoid of merit.”

“Unable to defend their case on the merits, the Elliott defendants and their counsel continue to focus their energies on a litigation strategy directed at attacking the character and good name of plaintiff’s counsel,” their motion states.

A letter from Arthur Klein, general counsel for Arnstein & Lehr in Chicago, accompanied the motion. Addressing the issue of Piloto and Diaz’s relationship, Klein states: “In our judgment, your letter is inappropriate and unprofessional. We do not believe it merits a substantive response.”

Responding to the claim that the investors are responsible for pushing resorts into foreclosure, the plaintiffs say Elliott conceded his companies missed payments months before judicial liens were imposed in the Dominican Republic.

“The spuriousness of the Elliott defendant’s allegations is further demonstrated by the fact that it had been plaintiffs who notified the court of the foreclosures, and plaintiff attorneys have moved heaven and earth to do whatever they could to prevent the foreclosures from occurring,” the plaintiff attorneys said in opposing their disqualification.

In an interview, Piloto, an Arnstein & Lehr partner, said she and Diaz are no longer involved in a relationship.

“We stand by our papers,” she said. “Judge Gold is not going to be happy. He sees this for what it is.”

Piloto said Burr is motivated by a personal vendetta against the Diaz Reus law firm, where he used to work. The Daily Business Review reported in May that Burr resigned from Diaz Reus in 2007 “under less than amicable circumstances.” He also is suing Miami-based Astigarraga Davis for allegedly firing him because he is gay. The law firm strongly denies that allegation.

(BTW, that's Hilda Piloto pictured above.)

Let's see -- sex, money, vendettas, lawsuits, children, wire transfers from unknown locations, Tom Scott somehow, and the DR.

Kids, don't tell our friend from Leesburg, but this is how we roll in Miami.