Skip to Content
Menu Toggle

Monthly Archives: August 2012

August 2012 Firm Newsletter

August 30, 2012 Newsletters

Featured in the August 2012 Issue Partner’s Perspective J&C Shareholders Appointed to Leadership of JBA Construction Law Committee J&C Continues “Lunch and Learn” Program for its Attorneys and Staff New Law Blogs Curiosities, Ruminations and Various Eccentricities of Firm Biz Click to read.

Protecting Documents Given to Testifying Experts

August 14, 2012 Professional Services Industry Legal Blog

In preparation for trial, expert witnesses are often retained and briefed based upon reports and documents provided to them from counsel. Two types of work product may be used to prepare documents and internal memorandum which are subsequently given to an expert witness: 1) fact work product, and 2) opinion work product. If memorandum prepared by a law firm in anticipation of litigation contains the attorney’s opinions relating to potential theories of liabilities, references to the expert’s opinions, and factual summaries of his client’s records, the attorney’s personal notes and records about the proposed arguments constitute protected work product. Whealton v. Marshall, et al., 631 So. 2d 323, 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (holding the law firm’s internal memorandum used in preparation for litigation were not discoverable work product).

Negating Defenses of Procedural Unconscionability in Loan Documents

August 14, 2012 Banking & Financial Services Industry Legal Blog, Professional Services Industry Legal Blog

Defaulted borrowers often attempt to argue that the waiver of defenses language included in loan documents is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. However, for a contract to be held to be unenforceable under Florida law, the contract must be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. See Golden v. Mobile Oil Corp., 882 F.2d 490, 493 (11th Cir. 1989); Gainesville Health Care Center v. Weston, 857 So. 2d 278, 284 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2003). If a contract is found to be either procedurally or substantively conscionable, then the contract is enforceable. See Eldridge v. Integrated Health Services, Inc., 805 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(emphasis added).

Why and What are Banks Prohibited From Disclosing Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) of Fraud by Federal Law?

August 14, 2012 Banking & Financial Services Industry Legal Blog

By: Charles B. Jimerson, Esq.

In 1992, Congress passed the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act (the “Act”) which requires banks to report suspicious activities to the appropriate federal authorities. Cotton v. Privatebank and Trust Co., 235 P. Supp. 2d 809, 812 (N.D. Ill. 2002). The laudable goal of the requirements contained in the Act was to encourage banks to make such reports related to criminal activities. Id. In fact, the stated purpose of the Act is to:

require certain reports or records where they have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings, or in the conduct of intelligence or counterintelligence activities, including analysis, to protect against international terrorism. 31 U.S.C § 5311.

subscribe to legal alerts

subscribe to our blogs

sign up now

Media Contacts

Charles B. Jimerson
Managing Partner

Jimerson Birr welcomes inquiries from the media and do our best to respond to deadlines. If you are interested in speaking to a Jimerson Birr lawyer or want general information about the firm, our practice areas, lawyers, publications, or events, please contact us via email or telephone for assistance at (904) 389-0050.

we’re here to help

Contact Us