Legal bills remind me of the old Groucho Marx quip to the great New Yorker essayist S.J. Perelman --

"From the moment I picked up your book until I put it down, I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it."

But it's true -- I think many judges and certainly clients often don't realize how expensive litigation is nowadays.

There's a lot to consider in Vanessa Blum's annual South Florida lawyer compensation survey, though as usual the methodology is flawed because the review is of fee submissions to courts in bankruptcy and from Florida government agencies who have retained private counsel, where fees are usually adjusted downward.

Still, as anyone who does this for a living knows, it costs an awful lot to litigate a case.

Consider Marcos (corrected!) Jimenez, who in a year racked up $700k in fees on behalf of the State of Florida in a valiant but unsuccessful effort to defeat class certification in the children's access-to-medical-care suit pending before Judge Jordan.

His team also handled a bunch of discovery and worked up and lost an sj motion.

(And this was at a discounted rate).

Or my pal Marty Steinberg, who -- seriously -- said his firm raises rates like clockwork every April Fool's Day.

Marty also told Vanessa he is worth every cent of his $695 an hour rate:

Hunton & Williams partner Marty Steinberg, who heads the receivership, said firm billing rates are determined centrally. Increases typically kick in April 1. Steinberg’s hourly rate was $695.

“I assume the firm thinks I’m worth that amount based on my track record,” he said. “I’ve tried hundreds of cases, and I’ve gotten pretty good results.”

This is actually true.

But let's not linger on fees. As Betty observed last night on Mad Men -- it's tawdry.

So go hail the conquering explorer Gerard Depardieu, have some fun on the bay with a bunch of drunken sailors, and see you all tomorrow!

aki2ru9cnd

Sorry I'm a little late with this morning's post, but I became transfixed by Drew Barrymore on the CBS Early Show. What a cutie, I totally understand why some poor schlub would make an entire documentary simply about trying to meet her.

Well, Judge Jordan just won't stay out of the news.

John Pacenti reports on yesterday's orders:

Two medical associations suing on behalf of poor children seeking basic health care from the state earned two critical victories in federal court.

U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan in Miami granted class action status Wednesday and denied the state’s dismissal motion.

The Florida Pediatric Society and the Florida Academy of Pediatric Dentistry claimed in the 2005 lawsuit that the state violates federal law by denying preventative health care to more than 1.5 million children.

Jordan said all Medicaid-eligible children under 21 who reside or will reside in Florida are part of the class. He rejected a claim by the state Agency for Health Care Administration that class-action status should be denied because not all class members are known at this time.

Actually, it's a pretty terse order for this Judge.

Stuart Singer was appointed class counsel, and the State was represented by Chesterfield H. Smith, Jr. as well as Marcos Jimenez from Kenny Nachwalter.

Magistrate Judge McAliley prepared an R&R recommending certification, which the defendants objected to.

I'm not too sure the Judge liked the number of objections:

Despite this precedent, the Defendants hurl a litany of objections at the R&R. Though the objections are impressive in number, they lack merit.

The defendants also argued a number of factual disputes exist which must be resolved at the certification stage, something the Judge also rejected:

The defendants argue that the R&R applies an incorrect legal standard to determine whether the proposed class satisfies Rule 23's requirements and that I should conclusively resolve factual disputes where there is conflicting evidence. As is evident from the legal standard applicable to class actions, conclusive resolution of factual disputes is not required. I may accept the plaintiffs’ allegations as true and may “consider the merits of the case to the degree necessary to determine whether the requirements of Rule 23 will be satisfied.” See Vega, 564 F.3d at 1265-66.

Finally, the Judge denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and though the order is also somewhat terse, it is lightened by the Court's Gonzaga analysis (a case right up there with Venetian Salami).

It will be very interesting to see where this one leads.