Summarily - A Podcast for Busy Lawyers

Co-host Jennifer Opiola joined Robert to review PIP and insurance opinions issued by the Florida DCAs in March.Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., v. laguna Riviera Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 2D DCA (retroactivity of § 627.714(4)). Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Avril and Romain, 4th DCA (deductible as an affirmative defense). Arway v. Progressive Amer. Ins. Co., 6th DCA (statute of limitations defeated by policy language). Envision Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 3d DCA (exhaustion and bad faith). Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Equality Florida sued Governor DeSantis et al., challenging H.B. 1557 (the "Don't Say Gay" law). The parties recently settled, and Florida agreed to limit the law's scope in significant ways.Robert is joined by John C. Quinn, a partner at Kaplan Hecker and Fink, and D. Brandon Trice, counsel at Kaplan Hecker and Fink. John and Brandon were part of a team of lawyers, led by Robbie Kaplan, who, along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, represented Equality Florida. Documents: Second Amended ComplaintOrder Dismissing Second Amended ComplaintSettlement AgreementSummarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Co-host Jennifer Opiola joined Robert to review PIP and insurance opinions issued in February, including one dealing with inconsistent verdicts and another about the retroactivity of the pre-suit demand statute under chapter 627.Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Tsirnikas, 2d DCA (inconsistent verdicts); see also Chiarella v. Ford, 4th DCA.Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Peipert, 3d DCA (entitlement to prejudgment interest).Cantens v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 3d DCA (retroactivity of pre-suit demand statute under chapter 627) (certifying conflict with the 6th DCA in Hughes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., which certified conflict with the 4th DCA in Cole v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.); see also Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Grove Isle at Vero Beach Condo. Ass'n, 4th DCA. Taylor v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 5th DCA (private right of action for interest under chapter 627 vs. contractual right to interest; incorporating statutory language in contracts). Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.  Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. 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.

Are you ready for new rule 1.041 (Notice of Limited Appearance), effective April 1? Tune into this episode to learn what you need to know. Robert and Lindsey also cover several opinions from January.In re: Jane Doe 23-B, 1st DCA (judicial waiver).Tanner v. Dashner, 4th DCA (single-homicide rule; ex post facto).Nelson v. State, 5th DCA (judge's comments at sentencing).Tesla v. Monserratt, 4th DCA (apex doctrine).John Knox Village of Cent. Fla., Inc. v. Est. of Alma Jane Lawrence, 5th DCA (amending to add punitive damages). Zimmerman v. Florida Gaming Control Commission, 5th DCA (agency's obligation to adhere to prior administrative decision). Rule 1.041 (Notice of Limited Appearance). Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Co-host Jennifer Opiola joined Robert to review PIP opinions issued in January.United Auto. Ins. Co. v. ISO Diagnostic Testing, 4th DCA (fee schedule).Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Andre, 4th DCA (setting aside default). State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Matthews, 5th DCA (prejudicial statements and right to fair trial).Sulzer v. Amer. Integrity Ins. Co. of Fla., 6th DCA (retroactivity of pre-suit notice statute; certifying conflict with 4th DCA).Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.   Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

On Tuesday, February 6th, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Trump and held that the former president is not immune from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office. Robert discussed the opinion with constitutional law professor Harold Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law. Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.   Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Professor Joe Regalia recently joined Robert to discuss how law firms can use generative AI to create and maximize efficiency and what law firms should do to prepare for the future with generative AI. Joe is an associate professor of law at UNLV’s William S. Boyd School of Law where he teaches legal writing and the intersection between the law and technology. He also leads the training and development team at Write.Law, an online training solution for honing skills like legal writing and legal technology (including generative AI). Joe is a nationally recognized legal writing and technology consultant for law firms, courts, agencies, nonprofits, corporations, and other organizations.Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.   Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Co-host Jennifer Opiola joined Robert to review a handful of PIP and insurance opinions issued in December. Advance Mold Servs., Inc. v. Universal N. Am. Ins., Co., 3d DCA (dismissal with prejudice). Universal Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Sunset 102 Off. Park Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 3d DCA (untimely motion to amend affirmative defenses; sanctions for spoliation; motion for mistrial).People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Diaz, 5th DCA (policy endorsements) (creating uniformity with the 3d, 4th, and 6th). State Farm Ins. Co. v. James, 5th DCA (policy interpretation). Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.   Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

On April 16, 1963, at just thirty-four years of age and five years before his life was cut short by an assassin, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. penned from a jail cell, the most powerful, persuasive, and poetic message ever written: Letter From Birmingham Jail. In honor of Dr. King and in celebration of his birthday, this is the audio of the Letter, read by Dr. King. What would have been had he lived?This is perhaps the most stirring and compelling passage of the Letter: We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”—then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

Goodbye 2023. Hello 2024. Robert and Lindsey rundown a handful of opinions and appellate rule changes from December.D.A.N. v. State, 1st DCA (attorney sanctions). Lapham v. Walgreens, 11th Cir (retaliation claims under the FMLA and Florida’s private sector whistleblowers act). Orozco v. Rodriguez, 6th DCA (standing to seek paternity determination).  Seadler v. Marina Bay Resort Condo. Assoc., Inc., FSC (relief from erroneous denial of cause challenge). McGothin v. McDonald, 5th DCA (claim for punitive damages). Ramos v. Steak N Shake, Inc., 2d DCA (pleading standard under FCRA). Florida BC Holdings, LLC v. Reese, 6th DCA (impact rule). In re: Amends. to Fla. R. App. P. 9.020 & 9.400.  In re: Amend. to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130. Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

In April 2023, Dr. Ellen Hendriksen joined Robert to discuss Imposter Syndrome and how it can negatively affect your mental health. Dr. Hendriksen is back to kick of the new year. She sat down with Robert to talk about how overidentification and perfectionism can diminish your self-worth. Dr. Hendriksen is a clinical psychologist. She serves on the faculty at Boston University's Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders (CARD) and is the author of How to be Yourself: Quiet Your Inner Critic and Rise Above Social Anxiety. She earned her Ph.D. at UCLA and completed her training at Harvard Medical School. You can follow her work at ellenhendriksen.com. And she has a wonderful substack: How to be Good to Yourself When You’re Hard on Yourself. Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. 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.

Happy Holidays!In March 2022, Judge Adalberto Jordan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and Judge Kevin Emas of Florida's Third District Court of Appeal sat down with Robert to talk about legal writing. They gave their views from the bench on what makes legal writing good (and not so good).Whether you are new to Summarily or an avid listener, you do not want to miss what the judges have to say. Summarily will be back with new episodes in 2024! Stay tuned.  Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Robert and Lindsey play catchup for October and November. Kenney v. State, 2d DCA (preservation; impeachment).Baxter v. State, 5th DCA (4th Amendment). See Owens v. State, 317 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)  (“regardless of whether the smell of marijuana is indistinguishable from that of hemp, the smell . . . from a vehicle continues to provide probable cause for a warrantless search of the vehicle”).Freeman v. State, 1st DCA (stand your ground).Parson v. State, 1st DCA (ordering trial court to issue order to explain reasoning). Rivera v. State, 4th DCA (“pre-trying”). Normandy Ins. Co. v. Bouayad, 1st DCA (prior panel rule). See A Not-so-Little Problem with Precedent: Intra-District Conflict in Florida District Courts of Appeal (by Kimberly Kanoff Berman, Adam Richardson, and Robert Scavone Jr.).Nepola v. Nepola, 4th DCA (en banc) (child support guidelines).Green v. State, 5th DCA (newly discovered evidence). Citizens of Florida v. Clark, FSC (preservation; rule 1.530).Aileen and Samuels v. Univ. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 4th DCA (preservation; objection to verdict form). Pine v. Pine, 4th DCA (attorneys’ fees)Kuschnitzky v. Marasco, 1st DCA (injunction for protection against sexual violence).  Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.   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 monet

Co-host, Jennifer Opiola, joined Robert to review a handful of opinions from November dealing with a variety of important issues: Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Thompson, 1st DCA (discovery).Hughes v. Univ. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 6th DCA (pre-suit notice; substance vs. procedure).People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Gunsser, 6th DCA (policy exclusions). Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.   Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

The 100th EpisodeI started this podcast with the goal of providing lawyers with free CLE courses, caselaw updates, and practice tips, and that is what’s in store on this episode. I sat down with Jeffery DeSousa, the Chief Deputy Solicitor General in the Florida Attorney General’s Office to talk about oral Advocacy. Jeff focuses on criminal appeals and constitutional litigation, primarily in the U.S. and Florida Supreme Courts, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal, and the Florida district courts. A graduate of Georgetown Law, Jeff has worked on hundreds of appellate cases and presented oral argument in approximately 70, including 17 in the Florida Supreme Court. Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Richard W. Painter joined Robert to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's new code of conduct, which outlines how the justices "should" conduct themselves.Richard served as chief ethics lawyer to President George W. Bush and as Associate Counsel in the White House Counsel’s Office during the Bush administration. He has testified many times before Congress on issues related to ethics in government. His forthcoming article SCOTUS House: Can a Supreme Court Ethics Lawyer and Inspector General Help Get this Fraternity under Control examines recent ethics scandals at the high court and outlines how a supreme court inspector general and congress can assure the justices uphold their duty to be faithful to the law. Richard teaches at the University of Minnesota Law School.Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

The data says the average attention span went from two-a-half minutes in 2003 to forty-seconds by 2020. Diminished attention is particular problematic for lawyers who are bombarded with emails, texts, calls, and social media alerts while trying to work. As our attention span diminishes so, too, does productivity and happiness.  Dr. Gloria Mark joined Robert to talk about our cognitive bandwidth, how we get distracted, what social media is doing to our attention span, and steps lawyers can take to help limit distractions. You can register for Dr. Mark's substack, The Future of Attention, here. Dr. Mark is Chancellor’s Professor of Informatics at the University of California, Irvine. She received her Ph.D. from Columbia University in psychology and studies the effect of digital media on people’s lives. Her recent book, Attention Span, explores the fundamental shift in how we work in the digital age, why we are distracted, and how we can restore balance, happiness and productivity in our lives.Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Co-host Jennifer Opiola joined Robert to review an important pre-suit demand case, and a cautionary tale about the benefits of motions in limine.Citizens Prop. Ins. v. Salazar, 3d DCA (motions in limine).Mercury Indem. Co. of Am.  v. Cent. Fla. Med. & Chiropractic Ctr., 5th DCA (pre-suit demand letters; safe harbor).Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Litigation often involves expert witnesses. Indeed, many cases rise and fall based on expert testimony. So nailing down what an expert will and will not testify about is critical to success. But deposing experts can be challenging.On this episode, Robert sat down with Sia Baker-Barnes to discuss deposing expert witnesses. Sia shared her advice on how to prepare for expert depositions and how to conduct depositions with an eye towards cross-examination. This episode has been approved by The Florida Bar for 1 hour of CLE credit. The course number is provided towards the end of the episode.  Sia is a shareholder at Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., and is board certified in civil trial practice. She has been practicing law for more than 20 years, and has obtained numerous multi-million dollar verdicts representing plaintiffs in personal injury, medical negligence, and product liability cases. Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Robert and Lindsey review opinions from September. CPPB, LLC v. Taurus Apopka City Ctr., LLC, 6th DCA (denial of motion to dissolve lis pendens).Greathouse v. State, 2d DCA (preservation of cause challenge).Collins v. State, 5th DCA (evidentiary hearing; newly discovered evidence).Gurolla v. State, 5th DCA (discovery violation).State v. Victorino and Hunter, 5th DCA (applicability of amended death penalty statute).In Re: Jane Doe, 5th (judicial waiver where a minor seeks abortion).T.G. United, Inc. v. AADD Properties, LLC, 5th DCA (eviction proceedings; court  registry). City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 11th Cir. (voluntary dismissal under rule 41). Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.   Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.