Third District Court of Appeal in Miami. (Photo: J. Albert Diaz/ALM)

The Third District Court of Appeal has issued an order holding that Miami attorneys who said they represented two Venezuelan companies aren't in fact the counsel of record.

The appeals court Wednesday denied the petition for writ of certiorari filed by litigators Andrew Kassier and Albert Piantini, concerning the pair's work for Venezuelan companies Publicidad Vepaco and LaTele Television.

The attorneys appealed after a trial court found that Manuel Mesa, rather than Kassier and Piantini, was the companies' rightful counsel.

What led to the confusion? It turns out the companies used the lawyers for two separate appeals in Miami-Dade.

The appellate court left it to the trial judge to unravel in a case that pitted the companies against Nelson Mezerhane and Rogelio Trujillo, former executives of Venezuela's Banco Federal.

Following the lead of a Venezuelan government's oversight board, referred to in the order as the Junta, the lower court determined Mesa was properly authorized to represent the companies. Like the Venezuelan board, the court found the companies intended Mesa to replace Kassier and Piantini.

Kassier and Piantini argued “that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in construing the panoply of orders rendered by the Venezuelan courts regarding the companies, and that the trial court's factual determinations are not supported by competent substantial evidence,” according to a summary in Wednesday's ruling.

However, the appellate court found “no error in the trial court's conclusions.”

“Petitioners assert that the orders require approval from the Venezuelan courts for Mesa to represent the companies in the instant litigation, and that such specific authority was not sought, much less acquired,” the opinion said. ”While we may agree with petitioners on the general jurisdictional proposition that an order determining which of competing counsel is authorized to represent a litigant is subject to certiorari review, we disagree that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law.”

Read the order: 

Mesa did not respond to requests for comment by deadline, and Kassier declined to comment. Piantini, meanwhile, told the Daily Business Review he had yet to review the order and declined to comment beyond stating he and Kassier “will be moving for rehearing.”

The opinion is the latest turn in the long-running legal battle between Publicidad Vepaco and LaTele Television against defendants Mezerhane and Trujillo. The companies contend Mezerhane and Trujillo absconded with $72 million in funds from the bank they'd been charged with overseeing. The defendants moved to Florida in 2010 before criminal charges were filed against them in their home country.

Related stories: 

Judge says Miami-Dade is no place for Venezuelan dispute

Lawyers Litigating Venezuela Have Mixed Views On Proposed Sanctions

$72M Theft Claim Against Venezuelan Bankers, Including Hugo Chavez's Top Opponent, Resurrected