The State Trial Court ultimately granted summary judgment for the firm, after determining that the “scam”

The State Trial Court ultimately granted summary judgment for the firm, after determining that the “scam”

Rob Klein was successful in affirming a trial court verdict striking a Plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim as a sham. The plaintiffs had sued the Firm’s clients based upon the contention that the defendant law firm had failed to initiate and pursue child custody proceedings in Argentina pursuant to provisions of the Hague Convention. Through discovery that was initiated in Argentina, the Firm was able to demonstrate that the Plaintiff had actually been a formal party to divorce proceedings in Argentina, and had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Argentine Courts. Accordingly, there was no basis for an assertion of jurisdiction over those same parties in the United States.

Greg Glasser, Rob Klein and Richard Jones successfully affirmed a summary judgment secured in a case involving a security guard who shot and seriously injured the plaintiff. The Firm demonstrated that the defendant was an independent contractor and that the alleged negligent acts occurred outside the scope of his employment.

Rob Klein and Yelena Shneyderman were successful in affirming a summary judgment in favor of the Securities Firm in Miami, which had employed a lawyer who was essentially running a Ponzi scheme out of the law firm, without the knowledge of the principals of the firm. The defendant was sued by a half a dozen prominent South American investors, all of whom claimed that they had advanced hundreds of thousands of dollars for investment in a massive telecommunications network in Africa. Financing was sought through some of the largest private capital firms in Europe. Ultimately, however, none of the deals ever materialized. The State Trial Court ultimately granted summary judgment for the firm, after determining that the “scam” was outside the course and scope of the former attorneys’ responsibility with the firm, and that the firm had no reason to suspect that the attorney had been operating a Ponzi scheme in conjunction with several other wealthy South American brokers. The court also determined that several of the transactions were unenforceable, to the extent that they were usurious under Florida law, and criminally usurious loans cannot be enforced.

Third District Opinion – Saralegui v. Sacher Zelman