Hi folks!

I don't know about you, but I'm a bit bored today.

Sure I could point out Vanessa Blum's well-written profile of Steve Zack.

BTW, did you know Steve does a Claude Pepper impression?

Hmm, maybe I should say, is there anyone out there who doesn't know Steve does a Claude Pepper impression?

Oh hail, perhaps the right question is -- does anyone even know who Claude Pepper is?

Like Steve, I do a killer George Raft impression, but for some reason the youngsters at the Bar functions just don't get into it like they used to.

Hey, did you know Representative Boehner's plan for transforming health care in America entails....reigning in junk lawsuits?

Oy veh.

For you helpless romantics (semantics?), a friend asks to break down Iqbal again:

The Iqbal court quoted the language from Twombly, that plaintiffs must "nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." I am moved to say that the court's pleading standard has gone from ridiculous to preposterous.

Of course, there is no practical difference between "conceivable" and "plausible," just as there is no real difference between "ridiculous" and "preposterous."

It only took me two minutes to find an opinion where the Court used "conceivable" and "plausible" interchangeably.

Not too long ago there was a case where the Supremes reversed a DC Circuit decision that Congress had violated equal protection with respect to a portion of the Cable Act. Here is F.C.C. v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307, 313-14 (1993):

In areas of social and economic policy, a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification. See Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478, 485 (1990); Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 600-603 (1987); United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174-179 (1980); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 484-485 (1970). Where there are "plausible reasons" for Congress' action, "our inquiry is at an end." United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, supra, at 179.

And then there’s the concurrence:

I continue to believe that, when Congress imposes a burden on one group, but leaves unaffected another that is similarly, though not identically, situated, "the Constitution requires something more than merely a `conceivable' or `plausible' explanation for the unequal treatment." United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 180 (1980) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment).

Is there any reason why “conceivable” and “plausible” are synonyms with respect to the rational basis test but not with respect to the pleading standard?

To sum it up, kids, is the Court’s wordplay laughable or risible?

Or as George Raft used to say, "part of it went on gambling, and part of it went on women. The rest I spent foolishly."

Hi folks!

So overall it was a pretty good football weekend, no?

Not to get all Iqbal-centric on a bright Monday morning, but I see that the House Judiciary Committee will be holding hearings this week on the dreadfully imprecise Iqbal pleading standard.

It's about time, I say.

I guess now that the folks in DC fixed health care, ended our wars, and restored our shattered economy they can get on to some important legislation for a change.

Vanessa Blum has a nice overview in today's DBR regarding law firms and how managing partners see the upcoming year.

Naturally, no one wants to say -- "it sucks, the clients are not paying, the work is drying up, the costs are out of control, and this year looks worse than last year."

So we hear lots of blather about energy-efficient lightbulbs, trimming fancy dinners and signing megabuck leases as a way to cut costs.

But then I came across this quote from the very wealthy and successful Bob Zarco:

Even Miami franchise law attorney Robert Zarco, a multimillionaire known for his extravagant fashion taste, said he reined in travel and entertainment spending at the 11-lawyer Zarco Einhorn Salkowski & Brito.

“I’m just being a little more cautious,” he said. “We used to stay in the absolute nicest hotels. We used to rent the most luxurious vehicles and eat in absolutely the most expensive restaurants.”

You're not kidding.

Just last year Bob was featured in a Herald article that focused on his high-flying travel expenditures:

Even so, the frequent traveler does not leave home lightly. He insists on five-star accommodations even when clients won't pay for it, making up the difference out of his own pocket.

"When I travel I am leaving my family, I am leaving the comforts of my home to work for someone else, " he said. "I live in a very nice home. I live very comfortably."

So when he's on the road, he tends to sleep in a Peninsula or a Ritz-Carlton, two of the country's priciest hotel chains. He's such a loyal customer that one Peninsula keeps sheets for him embroidered with "RZ."

Holy hail, if Zarco has been forced to endure a night's rest without his personally monogrammed sheets when he stays at the Peninsula, what is the world coming to?

I mean, what's next -- having to forgo the shrimp appetizer before the afternoon deposition? That's just unacceptable.

Seriously, what other indignities can a man be expected to endure?

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