'There's no argument': Judges flabbergasted as fumbling Florida lawyer fails to fend off questions about fundamentally flawed brief

A Florida lawyer appearing earlier a tribunal of appeals progressively recovered himself successful hotter and hotter h2o arsenic helium struggled to explicate his enactment astatine a basal level and connected respective fronts.

In the substance earlier the court, civilian lawyer Jerome Ramsaran is facing sanctions — including attorneys fees and costs incurred by the opposing enactment — implicit an allegedly insufficient little helium filed.

At the outset, 1 of the judges connected the three-judge sheet of the Sunshine State's Sixth District Court of Appeal made wide that Ramsaran was facing sanctions connected 2 chiseled fronts.

First, helium is taxable to a wide appellate rule punishing "the filing of immoderate proceeding, motion, brief, oregon different papers that is frivolous oregon successful atrocious faith." Second, helium is taxable to a Florida instrumentality punishing a lawyer who makes a assertion oregon defence that "[w]ould not beryllium supported by the exertion of then-existing instrumentality to those worldly facts."

Judge Paetra T. Brownlee started disconnected the proceedings by asking the lawyer however agelong helium had been practicing law.

"This period makes my 10th twelvemonth successful practice," Ramsaran said.

Then, aft immoderate back-and-forth with the court, it was established that the lawyer has been moving successful the appellate realm for astir 5 years and has worked connected "maybe much than 10, little than 20" appeals total. Ramsaran said his signifier mostly focuses connected homeowners security claims, idiosyncratic wounded lawsuits, and actions against banks and different lending institutions "on behalf of consumers."

Brownlee past settled into the bosom of the matter.

"When I look to the statement information of your archetypal brief, what I find are a plethora of citations to, benignant of, I privation to accidental boilerplate oregon well-settled rules of instrumentality that I don't judge either enactment contends aren't applicable here," the justice explained. "But there's conscionable a benignant of wide rule. There's nary statement with respect to immoderate of those citations. And truthful tin you archer maine astir that and wherefore determination is nary investigation successful the statement conception of the brief?"

The justice went connected to explicate that rules governing appellate filings successful Florida necessitate an lawyer to really contiguous an statement "with respect to each contented that you mean to rise connected appeal."

"May I look astatine the archetypal brief?" Ramsaran asked.

"Yes," Brownlee said.

"I wasn't alert we'd beryllium talking astir it today," the lawyer replied earlier helium pulled up and began to look astatine the document.

The judge interjected to explicate a much cardinal contented beyond adjacent the evident usurpation of the appellate rule.

"How would the appellee cognize what arguments to respond to if you're simply mounting distant well-settled points of law?" she asked.

Ramsaran replied that helium understood and said his squad "fleshed this retired a small amended successful our effect to their question for sanctions." Then, the lawyer insisted "we bash instrumentality a position" successful the little and continued poring implicit the papers successful an effort to find the argument.

But earlier helium could, Judge Joshua A. Mize interjected.

"Counsel, I'm astir amazed that you saw you didn't recognize we'd beryllium discussing your little today," the justice said. "When the bid to amusement origin specifically said the proceeding was astir your brief."

Here, Ramsaran said helium believed the proceeding was astir his deficiency of effect to a anterior show-cause order. But it was decidedly not.

Mize past work the bid aloud: "Why sanctions should not beryllium imposed against him pursuant to [an appellate rule] for, quote, 'filing a little that was frivolous oregon successful atrocious faith.'"

Ramsaran reiterated his content astir the deficiency of response.

"Maybe I misunderstood," the lawyer said.

After that, Ramsaran went done immoderate of the details successful the underlying litigation and argued determination was a "judicial contented of fact" regarding his clients and the different enactment successful the litigation.

Brownlee asked if that contented was successful the grounds connected appeal.

A lengthy treatment ensued wherever lawyer and justice aimed to suss retired what happened with the grounds connected appeal. Eventually, Brownlee gave up and went backmost to what she called her "original point."

"I americium wondering what is happening with the statement conception of this little specified that it's raised successful here?" she asked. "And specified that the appellee would person had announcement that that is your argument?"

Ramsaran attempted to consult his little but was admonished by some Brownlee and Mize for looking astatine the incorrect pages — and the second justice said the occupation boiled down to 2 abstracted issues.

Mize explained:

So, earlier we get to the benignant of merits of whether you could person had a assertion — and whether oregon not the proceedings tribunal did, successful information err; you had immoderate ground to quality that — I deliberation the contented is: You wholly failed to articulate an statement successful your brief, adjacent assuming you had one, there's conscionable nary statement astatine all. The statement conception that you person labeled "Argument" is conscionable benignant of a cut-and-paste from assorted rules and cases with nary mentation whatsoever however immoderate of those authorities, you know, marque an argument, wherefore the proceedings would person erred according to those authorities. There was conscionable nary effort — nary superior effort to conscionable your appellate burden.

Asked if helium understood the criticism, the lawyer said helium did.

"All I tin connection the tribunal is this," Ramsaran said a spot aboriginal on. "The lawsuit instrumentality that we mention goes to the arguments that were made — albeit they were not made successful the statement section; they were made successful an earlier conception — but they spell to the bosom of those arguments."

As the lawyer looked astatine the papers for a citation, Mize interjected yet again to ask: "Is determination immoderate portion of your statement section, Mr. Ramsaran, you tin constituent to and accidental this made an argument?"

To which the lawyer replied: "No, no."

Judge Keith F. White echoed his colleagues' concerns astir the deficiency of statement — but added a further wrinkle. The 3rd justice said helium had a hard clip knowing however the entreaty itself was adjacent filed successful "good faith" aft the proceedings tribunal justice disallowed a 3rd amended ailment and dismissed the 2nd amended complaint.

The lawsuit earlier the tribunal is stylized arsenic Foreman Electric Services, Inc. v. LSQ Funding Group, LC. The oral arguments successful question occurred connected Oct. 28, 2024. The video of the proceedings was precocious uploaded to YouTube by a Florida lawyer who works connected trusts and estates.