Creditors may become frustrated when they discover a debtor has engaged in an unfair transaction that hampers their ability to collect payment. However, creditors are not without remedy in the event that there has been some funny business with the debtor’s finances. Regardless of the debtor’s intentions behind the questionable […]
In a contingency case there are certain circumstances in which an attorney’s fee award can be increased through the use of a multiplier from 1.5 to 2.5.[1] Recent cases have limited the applicability of the use of a multiplier in Florida. However, careful navigation of the current case law gives some guidance of the types of cases in which a multiplier is appropriate and in which a multiplier is not appropriate.
On September 29, 2016 the Florida Supreme Court amended rules 4-1.1 and 6-10.3 to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. As a result, Florida attorneys will now be required to obtain 3 credit hours of CLE in approved technology programs. Further, language was added to the Comment to Rule 4.1.1 Competence, which reads as follows:
Competent representation may also involve the association or retention of a non-lawyer advisor of established technological competence in the field in question. Competent representation also involves safeguarding confidential information relating to the representation, including, but not limited to, electronic transmissions and communications.
What does this mean for litigators dealing with electronic evidence? I like to say that the realm of eDiscovery is a melding of legal and IT, two groups of professionals who speak different languages, and who under typical circumstances do not care to speak the language of the other. We have all heard that attorneys speak legalese, and we know of the “IT speak” that flies over the heads of IT industry outsiders. How can we manage the additional eDiscovery industry terminology that is a necessary part of the conversations between IT and legal that surround litigation or a government investigation? At the time of my entry into the field of eDiscovery in 2013, I had not even heard of the term metadata, much less jargon like DeNIST, TIFFing, load file, and so on.
Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) was passed by the Florida Legislature in 1973, and was designed as a state law complement to the Federal Trade Commission Act. 15 U.S.C. § 45. FDUTPA, sometimes referred to as the “Little FTC Act,” provides private remedies based on consumer protection […]
In Part I of this two-part series, we analyzed who may be liable under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“FUFTA”) and the broad categories of what transferors and transferees may be liable for. In this blog post, we seek to asses exactly what those transferors and transferees may be liable for if a money judgment is imposed.
Simply put, Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“FUFTA”) is a “powerful remedy.” See Brandon C. Meadow’s in-depth blog, Are Florida’s Fraudulent Transfer Claims Subject to Equitable Tolling? But what good is this powerful remedy if creditors do not understand what exactly it can do for them in light of misconduct by debtors? This blog post seeks to show creditors what rights and options they have for unwinding transfers and obtaining payback against those who assets were fraudulently transferred to.
As discussed in Part I of this blog series, some of the most qualified candidates for employment are often current or former employees of competitors in your industry. Non-compete agreements are helpful to employers who wish to control and limit the competitive activities that an employee may engage in after his or her employment ends. Once an employer has decided to offer employment to a current or former employee of a competitor, these are the most important considerations to make.
While a case is being litigated, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may take the deposition of any person. When deposing a corporate party on general issues, the business designates a corporate representative to speak for it. However, parties deposing corporations, in all variety of cases, will sometimes demand that the president, CEO, or another high-ranking official sit for deposition. These employees are commonly referred to as “apex employees.” Obviously, these high-ranking officers of the company will sometimes have information relevant to the case. However, sometimes a party will seek to depose an opposing party’s apex employee simply to inconvenience and/or harass him, or in order to gain a tactical advantage: the officer may have to disrupt a busy schedule, or may have to travel a great distance at a substantial cost. The deposing party may also try to somehow embarrass the officer, which could potentially damage the company.
The purpose of discovery within litigation is to uncover and ascertain the facts of a matter in order to argue the law based on those facts, and ultimately resolve the dispute before the court. In today’s world, evidentiary facts are often in digital form. The Internet of Things[1] connects common objects in our homes, places of work, and all points in between to the internet as information gathering sources. (Home alarm systems are a great example, which can track who arrives and departs from home and when; assigning distinct codes to each member of a household and sending text messages when the alarm is armed or disarmed.) Further, when people are moving from one place to the next, a large majority carry computers (mobile devices) around with them. For example, our smart phones tell us (and anyone else with access to our device) the best route to take to work and track where we park our cars. We are constantly plugged in, and therefore constantly creating a record of everything we do in what becomes digital/electronic evidence that is relevant if and when litigation arises. For more examples of electronic evidence, consider black boxes in vehicles, sensors, security cameras, home appliances, social media, websites, mobile devices, text messages, voice mail messages, chat history, e-mail, electronic documents and spreadsheets, mobile apps and games, and more. Handling all of this electronic evidence within the context of litigation is called Electronic Discovery (“eDiscovery” or “E-Discovery”).
Jury instructions are integral to facilitating each juror’s understanding of the law and the way in which to apply the law, when rendering a verdict following a jury trial. However, until just years ago, Florida lacked the substantive backing of jury instructions that were drafted with the specific intent to be utilized during contract and business law disputes. As standard jury instructions failed to properly guide jurors regarding what issues were of importance in their deliberations, naturally, parties subject to dispute found that jury trials failed to resolve matters in a way that promulgated equitable results to those involved. As we often take breach of contract cases to trial, these jury instructions will be pivotal for our practice at Jimerson Birr moving forward.