Akerman Partner in the Spotlight as Florida Supreme Court Opts for First Video Arguments
The deputy chair of the firm's litigation group is set for a starring role when the high court conducts video arguments for the first time May 6.
April 14, 2020 at 02:08 PM
4 minute read
Akerman partner Katherine Giddings was at the forefront of technological change as Florida courts shifted to electronic filings and live broadcasts of Florida Supreme Court arguments.
The deputy chair of the firm's litigation group is now set for a starring role when the high court conducts video arguments for the first time May 6. April arguments, including Giddings' case, were canceled due to the coronavirus pandemic, and this is the court's response.
"I think that it is actually awesome that the Supreme Court is figuring out a way to keep doing business and gets these cases processed," she said Tuesday after receiving a news release from the court announcing the switch to remote video using the Zoom platform.
Giddings represents Florigrown LLC in a challenge to the constitutionality of state Health Department rules implementing the medical marijuana referendum adopted by state voters in 2016. Another case to be argued in the same session addresses the wording of a proposed recreational marijuana initiative.
Giddings had loads of experience before the court, including her involvement in more than 80 cases and working as a staff attorney for a justice for seven years.
But this is like Monty Python's "Something Completely Different."
"It's obviously going to be different, but my understanding is they're going to be reaching out to us and doing a dry run," she said. "Hopefully there won't be any surprises. I expect it to be dignified and efficient and competently done."
Giddings has experience with WebEx video conferences and will join her first Zoom session Thursday. For arguments, she will go to the firm's Tallahassee office.
"I live out in the country. My home internet is not that great," she said. She plans to "stay well away from everyone and do it from the office."
Video attendance is limited to the justices, attorneys and technical staff.
Court spokesman Craig Waters is already managing expectations.
"The video and audio may not be the most polished production in our 23 years of live broadcasting Supreme Court arguments, but it will let the work of the court continue during the pandemic in a way that is consistent with public health guidelines," he said by email.
Giddings is pretty confident about the technical side on her end. When Akerman switched to remote work in mid-March, the decision was announced, and "we went remotely. As far as the attorneys were concerned, it was flawless," she said.
By chance, Giddings made a wise move when she left her office.
"Originally the day we got sent home from the office, (I have a methodical way I prepare for oral argument), I grabbed all my notebooks because I didn't know how long we would be quarantined, and it's a good thing I did."
She wonders if the Zoom option will result in a long-term change.
"Now that we're going to find out these things can be done, what are we going to do going forward?" she asked. "Is it now going to become the norm to have some type of WebEx or Zoom hearings? That's probably the biggest thing that's going to come out of this."
For now, the court isn't sure what will happen in June because of uncertainty about when people return to work and when the travel and hospitality industries revive.
"After May's arguments, we will study how well this system works, tweak it and have the system available for future arguments if it still is needed," Waters said.
While internal access to the arguments is strictly limited, public access will be available on the court's existing livestream feeds, which include a Facebook Live channel.
Each state is evaluating the resumption of court operations individually. The California Supreme Court was ahead on remote arguments, holding its first video hearings April 7, and the Texas Supreme Court followed April 8.
Read more:
Florida Chief Justice: Skip Work in Courts Until June
Take Note: Florida Supreme Court Lifts Delays on Some Bar-Regulation Cases
Adapting the Justice System to the New Coronavirus Normal
Update on Florida Court Rule Changes in Response to COVID-19
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readUS Judge OKs Partial Release of Ex-Special Counsel's Final Report in Election Case
3 minute readSpecial Counsel Jack Smith Prepares Final Report as Trump Opposes Its Release
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 2With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 3Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 4Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
- 5Top 10 Developments, Lessons, and Reminders of 2024
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250