Zone of Risk

Robert and Lindsey break down the following opinions issued in July.

• 701 Palafox, LLC v. Scuba Shack, Inc., 1st DCA (amended complaint to add claim for punitive damages)
• Drazen v. Pinto, 11th Cir. (en banc) (standing under TCPA)
• Crocker v. Crocker, 5th DCA (trial court’s discretion to consider an argument for the first time on rehearing) 
• K.R. v. DCF and Statewide GAL, 4th DCA (forfeiture of court-appointed counsel)
• Miller v. Gordon, 1st DCA (temporary timesharing)
• Casiano v. Casiano, 5th DCA (attorneys’ fees in a partition action; lack of transcripts) 

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

The Supreme Court of Florida recently issued an opinion about professionalism standards and stated, "The revised Professionalism Expectations that we adopt today emphasize that Florida’s professionalism standards apply to all forms of communication, including online communication, and to both in-person and remote (video or audio) interactions with others."

Zach Greenberg of FIRE (The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) joined me to discuss the opinion and whether the revisions presents First Amendment issues. Zach is also the plaintiff in Greenberg v. Haggerty, a First Amendment challenge to a Pennsylvania Bar Association's rule that restricts the free speech rights of Pennsylvania lawyers.

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

Impostor Syndrome "describes high-achieving individuals who, despite their objective successes, fail to internalize their accomplishments and have persistent self-doubt and fear of being exposed as a fraud or impostor."*

I battle Impostor Syndrome. Studies show that 75% of professionals do. And the numbers are higher among women and minorities. A large percentage of lawyers also deal with Impostor Syndrome. 

Dr. Ellen Hendriksen and Professor David Grenardo joined me to discuss Impostor Syndrome. They explain what it is, where it comes from, how it can impact our mental health, and ways to cope with it.

FLORIDA LAWYERS: LISTEN AND EARN A FREE MENTAL HEALTH CLE CREDIT.

Imposter Syndrome? 8 Tactics to Combat the Anxiety (ABA)

Dr. Hendriksen: How to Be Yourself: Quiet Your Inner Critic and Rise Above Social Anxiety

Prof. Grenardo: “The Phantom Menace to Professional Identity Formation and Law School Success: Imposter Syndrome,” published in the University of Dayton Law Review in 2022.

* Prevalence, Predictors, and Treatment of Imposter Syndrome: A Systematic Review, Dena M. Bravata, etc.

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

Lindsey Lawton and I sat down with Amanda Haverstick to talk about common mistakes in legal writing and how we can learn to Write Right. Amanda is a legal writing coach, writing consultant, and the founder of Writing Law Tutors LLC. She helps lawyers, law firms, and law students improve and fine-tune their writing.

You can follow Amanda on LinkedIn.

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

When it comes to trial advocacy, closing argument is second only to jury de-selection. Closing is a litigator's last change to speak directly to the jury and to bring days, weeks, or months of testimony and evidence to a climax.

Master trial lawyer, Sia Baker-Barnes joined Robert to discuss the fundamentals closing argument - Always Be Closing. The episode is approved for 1-hour of CLE credit (Florida).  

Sia is a candidate for president-elect of The Florida Bar. She is a board-certified civil trial lawyer with more than 20 years of experience. Sia has been recognized by US News & World Report as one of the “Best Lawyers in America” and was selected by the Daily Business Review as one of South Florida’s Inaugural “Top 20 Women in Law.” Sia has been involved with the Florida Bar for years and is among the lawyers currently representing the 15th Judicial Circuit on the Board of Governors. She is also a member of the International Society of Barristers, the American Board of Trial Advocates, the Palm Beach County Justice Association, and the Florida Justice Association.

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

Lindsey and Robert break down recent rule changes and opinions from June. 

• Rule 9.130, FSC (rule change adding to list of nonfinal, appealable orders).
• In Re: Code for Resolving Professionalism Referral and Amends. to R. Regulating Fla. Bar 6-10.3, FSC. 
• State v. Walker, 1st DCA (motion in limine; petition for cert.).  
• Coates v. R.J. Reynolds, FSC (section 768.79 is not a prevailing party statute). 
• Coinbase v. Bielski, USSC (mandatory stay during interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability). 
• Muniz v. King, 4th (adopting verbatim proposed orders).  
• Groff v. Dejoy, USSC (religious accommodation under Title VII). 
• Counterman v. Colorado, USSC (mens rea; First Amendment). 

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

Jennifer Opiola, PIP extraordinaire, joined Robert to explain several important PIP and insurance law opinions from May and June.  

• Mercury Indem. Co. of Amer. v. Pan AM Diag. of Orl., a/a/o Joceline Pierrilus (3d DCA).
• MGA Ins. Co., Inc v. Adv. Health & Wellness, Inc. a/a/o Esdras Cux (3d DCA).
• Infinity Auto Ins. Co. v. Miami Open MRI, LLC a/a/o Rolando Amador (3d DCA).
• Savoy v. Amer. Platinum Prop. & Cas. Ins. (4th DCA).
• Adv. Fla. Med. Grp., Corp. a/a/o Mindy Weir v. Progressive Amer. Ins. Co. (6th DCA).
• Progressive Exp. Ins. Company v. Simonmed Imaging a/a/o Hilleri Brown (6th DCA).
• SFR Servs., LLC a/a/o Donald and Jane Marston v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co. (6th DCA).

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

The Super Supremes dropped a few bombs in the final days of the 2022 term. Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law joined Robert to break down Biden v. Nebraska (student loans), Moore v. Harper (independent state legislature theory), 303 Creative v. Elenis (First Amendment), and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard & UNC (affirmative action).

Check out Professor Krent's article Judging Judging: The Problem of Second-Guessing State Judges' Interpretation of State Law in Bush v. Gore.

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

On June 8th - in the midst of the Trump indictment - the Super Supremes decided an important issue dealing with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In Allen V. Milligan, the Court affirmed a district court’s determination that Alabama’s congressional map likely violates section 2. The majority opinion came as a surprise to many because it was authored by Chief Justices Roberts, who has a track record of being hostile to the VRA.

Professor Carolyn Shapiro of the Chicago-Kent College of Law joined me to discussed the opinion. Professor Shapiro is the founder and co-director of Chicago-Kent’s Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States (ISCOTUS). She has appeared on MSNBC, NPR, and C-SPAN, and her commentary has been featured in the Washington Post, The Hill, CNN, and SCOTUSblog, Professor Shapiro co-authored an amicus brief in Milligan on behalf of members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Enjoy the discussion.

****
Check out the Florida Bar’s new mentoring program: Counsel to Counsel. It is designed to pair junior lawyers with lawyers who have 5 or more years’ experience. Registration is open for mentors and mentees.

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

The Supreme Court’s 2022 term is coming to an end, so it's time for a couple of Supreme Court roundup episodes. Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law joined Robert to discuss U.S. v. Texas, an important opinion about standing; U.S. v. Hansen, which deals with an overbreadth challenge to a federal criminal statute; and Samia v. U.S., which is about the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Professor Krent will be back with Robert on July 7th to review some of the Court's final opinions for this term, including a few blockbusters on affirmative action and the First Amendment. 

Enjoy the discussion and stay tuned.

****
Check out the Florida Bar’s new mentoring program: Counsel to Counsel. It is designed to pair junior lawyers with lawyers who have 5 or more years’ experience. Registration is open for mentors and mentees.

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com