Pages

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Kendall Coffey offers suggestions to unemployed law graduates

It's no surprise to anyone that the current job market for lawyers is bad.  But the problem is there is a great many law students who went into their education thinking that, if they worked hard, they would stand a good chance of a high-paying job once they graduated.  So they burnt the candle at both ends, saddled themselves with massive amounts of student loans, and set out to get a law degree.

Only to find that the market is saturated with experienced lawyers who were let go from their positions and that no one is hiring.

What is a law school graduate supposed to do?

Perhaps what is needed is not more jobs, but a reworking of the current system.  Perhaps law students shouldn't expect to work for a law firm where they'll be billed out at $250 an hour but should instead set out to work for themselves and serve a middle class which desperately needs legal advice but can't afford the rates of the big firms.

"Ironically, while thousands of new law graduates fret about the chronic joblessness that awaits them, tens of millions of Americans need attorneys but cannot afford them. And much of the unmet need rests in America's middle class, which is neither rich enough to pay $250 an hour for lawyers nor poor enough to qualify for legal aid organizations."

Those are the words of Kendall Coffey, a Miami lawyer, legal analyst, and author of Spinning the Law.  Kendall suggests that legal students and law schools should reexamine the way they see the legal field and should change to fit the current environment and the rampant unemployment that awaits law school graduates.

In his piece at Law.com, Kendall writes that, with prudent office economics, there's no reason why recent law graduates can't launch successful practices. The problem is that their current education neither gives them any background in how to do this nor even prepares them for the idea.  Instead law schools still teach to a model which is quickly becoming obsolete.

He suggests turning to current lawyers in order to mentor these new fledglings, "leaders of the bar are well positioned to emphasize that placing many graduates in successful careers is more important than placing a few in traditional law firms. While prestige is nice, it does not pay monthly mortgages, much less student loans."

Indeed.  And the quicker schools can get this idea through their heads, the better. 

Thursday, August 16, 2012

MSNBC questions atypical police protocol in Trayvon Martin case


The widely publicized Trayvon Martin killing raised some serious questions about police protocol, the ‘stand your ground’ law in Florida, and the friction that racial and ethnic boundaries are causing in the state.

Originally, the night the event took place, the police chose not to arrest George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin, despite the recommendation of the lead investigator, Chris Serino. The case was initially deemed a self-defense case because of the ‘stand your ground’ law that would allow Zimmerman to forcefully defend himself without the obligation to flee from the alleged attack.


The reaction from the authorities was atypical, especially considering that those who overruled the leading investigator were officials who were not at the scene of the crime. “…The lead investigator, the person that normally law enforcement would say is in the best position to assess whether or not there’s probable cause [for arrest, was] effectively overruled by people sitting back at the office,” said Kendall Coffey, adding that the scenario raised questions.

Though new information has unraveled since Feb. 26, the night of the incident, the case proceeds, unraveling new facts and triggering profound emotion and concern. 

'Stand your ground' controversy spikes in Trayvon Martin case


Hypothetical Situation:  A young man wanders around an area with which he is unfamiliar. It’s nighttime and he has somewhere to be but he’s not quite sure how to get there. His eyes meet with those of a stranger, wary of his presence. They exchange unfriendly words. Words give way to actions and soon the young man is dead. The older man killed him.

According to Florida’s ‘stand your ground’ law, someone who is being attacked or is facing an imminent threat may forcefully defend himself without the requirement to flee. Therefore, the older man, the one who’s still living in the above scenario, can invoke ‘stand your ground’ and pass the murder off as self-defense without facing any backlash. Many would consider this scenario an unfortunate encounter when an adolescent boy messed with the wrong man.

However, consider that this was perhaps not the older individual’s first run-in with the law. Would his claim of self-defense become less credible if he had a criminal history? What if this history included robbery, assault, or battery? Would he still be capable of cloaking himself in ‘stand your ground’ if he had one previous arrest? Two? Three?

Reporters at the Miami Herald uncovered the statistics behind who exactly was benefitting from ‘stand your ground.’

According to the Herald, “Nearly 60 percent of those who claimed self-defense had been arrested at least once before the day they killed someone… More than 30 of those defendants, about 1 in 3, had been accused of violent crimes, including assault, battery or robbery. Dozens had drug offenses on their records… Killers have invoked ‘stand your ground’ even after repeated run-ins with the law. Forty percent had three arrests or more. Dozens had at least four arrests.”
Legal experts like Kendall Coffey are skeptical of the controversial law. Of course, it is an inherently problematic law, because, as Coffey noted, “It would be impractical to try and apply the law differently between those who do and don’t have records. And frankly, it would be unfair.”
Obviously having a previous criminal record shouldn’t preclude someone from protecting himself when the situation warrants it. However, a guilty man should not be able to so easily invoke a law designed to protect the innocent, and run free.
“The legislators wrote this law envisioning honest assertions of self-defense, not an immunity being seized mostly by criminal defendants trying to lie their way out of a murder,” said Kendall Coffey.
Though the law would work well to protect an innocent person defending himself, it appears as though more guilty individuals have benefitted from its enactment. Legal experts like Kendall Coffey and a significant amount of Florida citizens would prefer that the law be curtailed. Time will tell whether ‘stand your ground’ has a future in Florida.  

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Former South Florida U.S. Attorney joins McDermott Will & Emery

It has recently been announced that former U.S. Attorney Marcos Jimenez has joined McDermott Will & Emery to help build a white collar and business litigation team in both Miami and New York.

Jimenez has a wealth of deep trial experience, especially with health care clients, and figured prominently in a case brought against Alltel by the Florida State Attorney General.  He obtained a final judgement in Alltel's favor after an investigation that stretched over nine years. 

Kendall Coffey, another former U.S. Attorney from Miami, Fl  and partner with Coffey Burlington commented on the move.  

"They are a very lucky law firm to get him," Coffey said. "Mark is a superstar and has a huge impact wherever he goes."

Friday, July 13, 2012

Kendall Coffey on former BTU president Pat Santeramo


It doesn’t seem possible that the president of a teachers’ union would be able to amass a great deal of money, even if they were using less-than-legal means.  But in Fort Lauderdale former Broward Teachers Union Pat Santeramo seems to have proven that idea wrong, as he has been accused of stealing nearly $300,000 of union funds. 

How did he manage to do all of that?  It’s alleged that he took part of a scheme where he worked with a contracting company, Marstan Construction of Coral Springs, to charge the Union inflated prices for basic services including changing light bulbs, killing ants, dying carpets, or other maintenance work.  The construction company, in return, kicked back cash to Santeramo in amounts ranging from $1,000 to $20,000 a pop.

Pat Santeramo


The board, especially former BTU board member Jeanne Albertus, became suspicious when they saw the same company receive all of the contract work, and to see large amounts of it.

“I didn’t think anyone could be infected with that many ants,” said investigator Sheriff Al Lamberti.  "With every bill, there was something tacked on for him."

Santeramo also used union credit cards to pay for items not related to BTU business, reimbursed members and associates for the contributions they made to political campaigns, and used forged documents to obtain nearly $122,000 of unused vacation and sick hours when he resigned in December.

Luckily there was documentation in the termination agreement that should help the prosecutors.  According to Kendall Coffey, the lawyer representing BTU, that agreement contained a specific carve-out that the union can seek the money if there was any kind of fraud committed.

He, and the union plan to “take whatever action may be appropriate to try to recover the funds.”  They very well might have a better chance than most, as Santeramo was under investigation by the police for about nine months. 

"We now have the benefit of a very extensive police investigation, which we suspect may well serve as a road map for our recovery efforts," Kendall Coffey explained.  

Friday, June 29, 2012

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Miami litigators cleared of all wrongdoing


Kendall Coffey


According to the Daily Business Review Miami litigators Michael Tein and Guy Lewis have been cleared of all wrongdoing in a recent dispute.


The legal issue involved concerned their representation of Tribe members Tammy Gwen Billie and her father, Jimmy Bert, who were involved in a car crash that killed a Miami woman 14 years ago.  Although the woman’s family was supposed to be awarded $3.2 million in 2009 the amount has yet to be paid. 


The two lawyers were accused of wrongdoing over alleged discovery violations in their representation of Billie and Bert and have been cleared of all charges. 


Kendall Coffey, who is representing Lewis  and Tein in front of the bar explains that the two of them were completely cleared.  “The Bar examined the issues thoroughly and carefully, and the result is a complete vindication for Lewis Tein, one of our pre-eminent litigation firms," Kendall Coffey said.


But there is still a dispute that the Bar is monitoring, regarding whether the assertion by Tein and Lewis that the clients- not the tribe- paid their legal fees. 


Why is this an issue?  Read the full article over at the DailyBusiness Review.