When legal disputes arise in the business world, having a skilled and experienced litigation attorney by your side is crucial. However, with numerous attorneys to choose from, finding the right one for your specific needs can be daunting. 

In this blog post, we’ll provide you with valuable insights and practical tips to help you make an educated decision. From understanding your requirements to assessing qualifications, we’ll cover all the essential aspects. 

Assessing Your Legal Needs

Identifying the Scope of Litigation

Before embarking on your search for a litigation attorney, it’s important to define the specific legal needs of your business. Consider the type of disputes you may encounter, such as contract disputes, intellectual property matters, employment disputes, or regulatory issues. Understanding your potential litigation areas will help you find an attorney with relevant expertise.

Evaluating the Complexity of Your Case

Determine the complexity of your case by assessing factors such as the monetary value involved, the number of parties involved, and the potential impact on your business’s reputation. Complex cases may require attorneys with extensive experience and resources to handle intricate legal matters effectively.

Researching Potential Attorneys

Seeking Recommendations & Referrals

Start your search by seeking recommendations from trusted sources, such as fellow business owners, industry associations, or other attorneys you may have worked with in the past. Referrals often provide valuable insights into an attorney’s reputation and abilities.

Online Research & Reviews

Utilize online resources to research potential litigation attorneys. Visit their websites, review their areas of expertise, and read testimonials or reviews from previous clients. Online directories and legal platforms can also help you find attorneys specializing in business litigation.

Evaluating Qualifications & Experience

Specialization in Business Litigation

Ensure that the attorney you choose has specific experience and expertise in handling business litigation cases. Look for evidence of their successful track record in resolving similar disputes and their knowledge of relevant laws and regulations.

Years of Practice & Courtroom Experience

Consider the attorney’s years of practice and the depth of their courtroom experience. A seasoned litigator who is comfortable advocating for clients in court will be better equipped to handle your case effectively.

Assessing Compatibility & Communication

Initial Consultation

Schedule an initial consultation with the potential litigation attorneys on your shortlist. This meeting will allow you to assess their communication style, responsiveness, and ability to understand your specific business needs. Ask relevant questions and evaluate how well they address your concerns.

Fee Structure & Budget

Discuss the attorney’s fee structure during the initial consultation. Clarify how they bill for their services, including hourly rates, retainer fees, and potential additional expenses. Ensure that their fees align with your budget and the estimated scope of your litigation.

In Conclusion

Choosing the right litigation attorney is a critical decision that can significantly impact the outcome of your business disputes. A skilled litigation attorney who understands your business and has a proven track record can protect your interests and help navigate the complex legal landscape. We at Ayala Law PA pride ourselves in providing our clients with exactly that.

For litigation advice, contact one of our experienced litigation attorneys at 305-570-2208. You can also email our lead attorney Eduardo directly at eduardo@ayalalawpa.com.

We’re passionate about helping those in legal need, so please don’t hesitate to schedule a case evaluation with us online here.

The post Choosing the Right Litigation Attorney for Your Business first appeared on Ayala Law PA.

Ayala is proud to announce that it has obtained a final judgment enforcing a $130,000 settlement it obtained earlier this year with a Texas attorney involved in a 2-million-dollar Personal Protective Equipment scam. The judgment also awarded Ayala’s client $1,750.00 in attorney’s fees.

The case stemmed from a scheme whereby the defendants including conspired to induce Plaintiffs to invest two million dollars in a PPE scam.

The case was filed in the US Southern District of Florida, case # 1:21-cv-20975. Honorable judge Beth Bloom is the judge on the case.

As stated in the general magistrate report and recommendation:

“the Sadick Defendants admitted that they had executed the Settlement Agreement and that the required settlement payment in the amount of $130,000.00 has not been made. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Additionally, the Settlement Agreement provides for prevailing party attorney’s fees, as to which Plaintiff seeks to recover $1,750. Given the undisputed existence of the Settlement Agreement, the Sadick Defendants’ non-payment, and the prevailing party fees provision, the undersigned RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce be GRANTED and that Final Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against the Sadick Defendants be ENTERED in the principal amount of $130,000.00, plus $1,750.00 in attorney’s fees for a total judgment amount of $131,750.00.” (Internal citations omitted).

The order adopting the report and recommendation can be found here: [Order]

As stated by Attorney Eduardo A. Maura: “this is a step in the right direction. We look forward to sparing no resource in collecting this judgment for our client.”

For more information about commercial disputes, contact an experienced commercial litigation attorney at Ayala at 305-570-2208.

You can also schedule a consultation online at https://www.lawayala.com/consultation/.

You can also email directly trial lawyer Eduardo A. Maura at eduardo@ayalalawpa.com

The post Ayala Obtains Final Judgment Enforcing $130,000 Settlement Against Texas Attorney in PPE Scam Case first appeared on Ayala Law PA.

A demand letter is just that, a letter demanding something; usually a payment. Attorneys in south florida will charge anywhere between $500 to $2,000 to write a demand letter. But, is the investment worthy? The answer is, it depends.

There are different types of scenarios where the need for a demand letter comes up. Sometimes, the nature of your case requires it. For example, if the fact situation you are dealing with involves plain theft, and the attorney believes a civil theft under Chapter 772 of Florida Statutes should be established, then, the demand letter is mandatory. In that case, the cost of the letter will probably be factored into what the attorney is charging you for the case.

In the majority of civil actions though, a pre lawsuit demand is not mandatory, and the question becomes, is it worth it? The answer to this depends on the type of action. If your case involves fraud, intentional conduct, or deceit by the defendant, then the answer is: probably not. These types of defendants will completely ignore the letter, and you are simply adding extra expenses to your legal case.

In other cases, those that sound in negligence or unintentional conduct, a demand letter is perhaps a good idea. A well-written formal letter from a reputable attorney can perhaps go a long way in resolving your case, without the need and expense of filing a lawsuit. Lawsuits are expensive and as much as possible, out of court resolutions are preferred.

For more information about lawsuits, demand letters, or any other dispute, contact an experienced litigation attorney at Ayala at 305-570-2208.

You can also email directly to trial attorney Eduardo A. Maura at eduardo@ayalalawpa.com.

You can also schedule a case evaluation online at https://www.lawayala.com/consultation/

The post Is it Worth Paying a Lawyer to Write a Demand Letter? Read to Find Out first appeared on Ayala Law PA.

Normally, in all cases, the court where the case is being adjudicated needs to have jurisdiction over the dispute. Jurisdiction is a fancy term for the Court’s power to decide the case it has in front of it. That power usually comes via some statute or the state’s constitution. For example, in Florida, state circuit courts only have power over disputes involving more than $30,000. If a dispute is for less than $30,000 a circuit court will lack jurisdiction and therefore cannot make decisions in the case.

What happens then when a party filed a motion to sanction another litigant for violation of some rule? Can that party freely violate the rule, and the court is then powerless to sanction such litigant because it does not have “jurisdiction”?

This question was answered, at the federal level, in Hyde v. Irish, 962 F.3d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir. 2020).

In that case, the Defendant Irish, appealed the denial of a motion for sanctions filed in the lower district court.

The US 11 Circuit Court of Appeals held that “[I]n the world of jurisdiction, there’s an important distinction between the underlying case or controversy and certain “collateral” matters. Hyde, 962 F.3d at 1309. The court considered the sanctions issue as a “collateral” matter. It held then that a “district court may address a sanctions motion based on its inherent powers or § 1927 even if it lacks jurisdiction over the underlying case.” Hyde, 962 F.3d at 1310. Otherwise, the court held, “parties who abuse the judicial procedures could get off scot-free anytime it turned out that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.” Id.

Thus, even though a court may lack jurisdiction over the substance of a dispute, when litigants misbehave or break court rules, courts—under its “inherent powers”—may sanction a party in a case where it otherwise lacks jurisdiction or authority to decide.

For more information about litigation in Florida contact an experienced litigation attorney in Miami at 305-570-2208.

You can also email trial attorney Eduardo A. Maura at eduardo@ayalalawpa.com.

You can also scheduled a case evaluation online at https://www.lawayala.com/consultation/

The post Can a Court Sanction a Party Even Though it Lacks Jurisdiction on the Underlying Case? first appeared on Ayala Law PA.

The Attorney-Client privilege is the name given to an old doctrine in the US legal system—which has counterparts world wide—in which communications between attorneys and clients in the context of providing legal representation are confidential and protected from disclosure.

What happens though, when the attorney is also an employee of the corporation; what’s usually named as “in-house counsel.” Are communications between employees of the corporation and another employee (the in-house lawyer) of the corporation protected from disclosure under the Attorney-Client privilege doctrine?

The Florida Fourth District Courts of Appeals addressed this issue head on in Herrera v. Jarden Corp. In that case the Fourth District held that “The attorney-client privilege ‘protects confidential communications between a lawyer and client, as well as third persons to whom disclosure is in furtherance of the rendition of legal services and those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication.” Herrera v. Jarden Corp., 334 So. 3d 637, 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 997 So. 2d 1148, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)).

This privilege, the court continued, “extends to communications between employees and in-house general counsel, whether oral, contained in documents or contained in a database.” Id.; see also Fla. Marlins Baseball Club, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy No. 893/HC/97/9096, 900 So. 2d 720, 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“[T]he attorney-client privilege protects communications on legal matters between corporate in-house counsel and corporate employees.”). Herrera v. Jarden Corp., 334 So. 3d 637, 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

To determine “whether a corporation’s internal communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege, [the court] consider[ed] the following criteria:

(1) the communication would not have been made but for the contemplation of legal services;

(2) the employee making the communication did so at the direction of his or her corporate superior;

(3) the superior made the request of the employee as part of the corporation’s effort to secure legal advice or services;

(4) the content of the communication relates to the legal services being rendered, and the subject matter of the communication is within the scope of the employee’s duties;

(5) the communication is not disseminated beyond those persons who, because of the corporate structure, need to know its contents.”

Herrera 334 So. 3d at 644-45.

As seen, as long as the communications are in the context of corporate activities, and related to legal issues, communications between an in-house attorney and a corporate employee will be protected by the attorney-client privilege doctrine.

For more information about legal matters related to confidential communications, contact an experienced litigation attorney at Ayala at 305-570-2208.

Visit also our practice areas sections to see how we can be of any help: https://www.lawayala.com/practice-areas/

You can schedule a case evaluation online at https://www.lawayala.com/consultation/.

The post Are In-House Counsel Communications Covered by the Attorney-Client Privilege? first appeared on Ayala Law PA.

Service of process (“Service”) is the process by which a party to a lawsuit gives the appropriate notice of initial legal action to another party.

Within the United States, Service is usually personal, meaning that the “process server” has to physically deliver the lawsuit to the defendant’s hand. With some exceptions, that is the general rule.

When it comes to international cases, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state the following regarding Service:

Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual . . . may be served at a place not within any judicial district of the United States:

(1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents.

Article 2 of the Hague Convention provides that each contracting state shall designate a Central Authority that will receive requests for service from other contracting States. Convention, 20 U.S.T. 361.

Additionally, Article 10(a) of the Convention provides that if “the State of destination does not object, the . . . Convention shall not interfere with . . . the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad.” Id. Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Bitton, 278 F.R.D. 687, 689-90 (S.D. Fla. 2012).

Canada does not object to the use of regular mail as a method for service. See http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=status.comment&csid=392&disp=resdn (declaring, in reference to Article 10(a), that “Canada does not object to service by postal channels” and “Canadian law allows the use of postal channels to serve Canadian documents to persons abroad”). From Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Bitton, 278 F.R.D. 687, 690 (S.D. Fla. 2012).

Thus, if you have a defendant domiciled in Canada, you can simply serve that Canadian defendant by regular mail. This is big, because, in many cases, defendants avoid lawsuits all together by hiding under service of process laws that require that service be effected personally (i.e.: physically).

If you have a question about service of process, International legal issues involving Canada, or any other litigation problem, contact a litigation attorney at Ayala at 305-570-2208 or email business lawyer Eduardo A. Maura at eduardo@ayalalawpa.com.

You can also schedule a case evaluation online at https://www.lawayala.com/consultation/.

The post What is Service of Process and Can I Serve by Mail to a Defendant in Canada – Read to Find Out first appeared on Ayala Law PA.

Abogado del Estudio Ayala, Eduardo A. Maura, presentará sobre visas basadas en peticiones familiares a los egresados de la Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru. La presentación será el día Sabado 16 de Julio a las 11:00 AM hora Peruana. La presentación tratará sobre los diferentes tipos de peticiones familiares existentes (de familiares directo o indirecto), las condiciones para la aprobación de una visa basada en petición familiar, y detalles sobre el proceso legal para obtener la aprobación.

La presentación será via zoom. Los interesados pueden registrarse en este enlace. https://pucp.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJcude-trz8jGNA_yO8-Aj-qfouZe4x1FuVv

Para más información sobre peticiones familiares, contacte a un abogado de inmigracion del estudio al 305-570-2208. Usted también puede programar la evaluación de su caso online en este enlace: https://www.lawayala.com/consultation/

Si desea puede enviar un correo electrónico al abogado de inmigracion Eduardo A. Maura a eduardo@ayalalawpa.com

The post Abogado de Ayala Será Panelista en Sesión Sobre Temas Migratorios de La Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru first appeared on Ayala Law PA.

Ayala is proud to announce that Ayala’s attorney Eduardo A. Maura has been appointed to the board of directors of Catholic Legal Services (CLS).

As stated in CLS’s website, CLS “is a nationally recognized agency with an experienced team of attorneys and immigration professionals and whose mission is to provide professional legal services, both application assistance and attorney representation before the Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, to those who come from foreign lands who lack sufficient means to obtain representation without regard to faith or national origin.”

On the appointment, attorney Eduardo A. Maura stated: “I am honored to be selected to help such an important organization. I am an immigrant and I love immigrants. They are some of the kindest people I’ve ever met. I also love immigration law and civil litigation, and I hope I can help CLS’s clients in immigration cases, and in immigration cases that require litigation.“

For more information about attorney Eduardo A. Maura visit his profile page at: https://www.lawayala.com/eduardo-a-maura/

For more information about Ayala’s practice areas visit https://www.lawayala.com/practice-areas/.

To schedule a case evaluation about any of the matters we handle visit https://www.lawayala.com/consultation/ or call our office at 305-570-2208.

The post Ayala’s Attorney Eduardo A. Maura Appointed to Board of Directors of Catholic Legal Services first appeared on Ayala Law PA.

Whether a corporation or LLC can represent itself depends on the type of court the dispute is in.

In Florida there are two types of trial courts. The Circuit Courts and the County Courts. County Courts at the same time have two different divisions: the regular County Court and the Small Claims Courts division.

Circuit Courts have jurisdiction over disputes involving more than $30,000 in damages. County Courts address disputes between $8,000 to $30,000. Small Claims Courts have jurisdiction over disputes below $8,000.

A corporation cannot represent itself in Circuit or County court. In Szteinbaum v. Kaes Inversiones y Valores, C.A., 476 So. 2d 247, 248 (Fla 3d DCA 1985) the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida held that “It is well recognized that a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself and cannot appear in a court of law without an attorney.”

In Small Claims Court the situation is different. A corporation may appear pro se when the cause of action proceeds under the Small Claims Rules—a special set of rules governing low value disputes. Johnstown Properties Corp. v. Gabriel, 50 Fla. Supp. 138 (Polk Cty. Ct. 1980).

For more information about corporation or LLC representation or lawsuits, contact a litigation attorney at Ayala at 305-570-2208. You can also schedule your consultation online at: https://www.lawayala.com/consultation/

The post Can a Corporation or an LLC Represent itself in Litigation in Court? – Read to Find Out. first appeared on Ayala Law PA.

In this part III of the “how can I protect my small business from lawsuits” articles, I focus on layering. What do I mean by layering?

You can have, for example, a Limited Liability Company (LLC) and you, the human, be the owner of 100% of it. That type of ownership structure will give you the least protection possible. The law treats this type of entities almost as a sole proprietorship rather than a “partnership”—one of the very purposes of an LLC. This structure makes it easier to reach the owner if something happens, as the entity and you are virtually the same.

To avoid this, it is important that you have several layers of ownership protection. The first one is to always have a partner. Even if that partner owns 1% of the LLC or entity. Having a 1% co-owner will create a legal partnership that will give the LLC device more strength, and consequently it will better shield its owners’ assets.

Now, the owners/partners don’t have to be humans necessarily, they can be another LLC. For example, you could have LLC-1 that is owned 99% by LLC-2 and 1% by LLC-3. LLC-2 at the same time, can have its own owners, LLC-4 at 99% and LLC-5 at 1%. LLC-4 could be owned by an irrevocable trust in a foreign country for the benefit of Human-Owner’s children.

As seen, this sophisticated system of layers adds additional protections to the company and shields its assets from exposure. Should, god forbid, LLC-1 get in trouble, it will be very hard to reach the personal assets of Human-Owner because they are so far removed, deep into the layers of protection.

Of course, like everything, there are pros and cons. Creating and maintaining layering systems is not cheap. The more layers and entities involved, the more legal and accounting fees involved—if they are to be properly maintained. A business owner must make a cost benefit analysis and determine if the amount of assets and the type of business activity involved (and how risky it is) merits investing in a sophisticated system of layers.

For more information about how to protect your business from lawsuits email me at eayala@ayalalawpa.com, or call 305-570-2208.

The post How can I Protect My Small Business From Lawsuits? —Layering (Part III). first appeared on Ayala Law PA.