The attorneys of Tripp Scott have tremendous respect for the legal and judicial system of which they are, in fact, sworn officers. But sometimes, even the greatest legal system in the world gets it wrong the first time. And that’s why the appeals process is often where a case really begins, and why the work of our Appellate practice is so critical.

The appeals process is fundamentally different from the trial level in its operations, procedures and its focus on application—and sometimes, evolution—of the law as opposed to the facts. But successful appeals also depend on an in-depth familiarity with the trial stage, which is where errors happen, and often, critical appeals of trial-shaping motions occur.

Distinguishing the team are four members who served as clerks for federal and state judges at the district and appellate levels and whose intimate knowledge of the workings, judicial leanings and legal reasoning of the appellate branch provides a vital edge. An edge not just in framing the facts and issues arising from the trial case, but also in formulating novel theories that help interpret and create new law, and adapt the law to changing realities, in our common-law system shaped and re-shaped by centuries of case precedents.

The work of the Appellate practice, as indicated above, is not limited to its breakthrough work at the appeals level, including final appeals and writs of certiorari. Our attorneys are frequently part of trial teams to ensure that from the earliest stages—from pre-trial motions through discovery through the presentation of evidence to closing arguments into post-trial motions—procedures are properly followed; motions, objections, and questions properly framed; and errors are preserved for appeal.

In addition, motions, such as recusal of a judge or admissibility of certain evidence during the course of a trial, can be and often are the subject of appeals.

Post-trial, the Appellate practice can help determine whether an appeal is appropriate, defend an appeal from a losing opponent and determine whether pursuing a settlement made possible by the potential for an extended and likely expensive appeal is preferable. Trial teams from other firms also turn to Tripp Scott for appeals they do not feel equipped to pursue.

Significant appeals victories by the Tripp Scott appellate team in recent years in the state appellate courts and at the federal Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals include:

• Citizens for Responsible Development, Inc. v. City of Dania Beach: successfully defended the granting of summary judgment, rejecting an expansive concept of standing to sue that could have created new roadblocks for development and economic growth in the state.

• Lexi Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Moss & Associates, LLC: defended summary judgment denying an extensive theory as to the statute of limitations for potential defects on construction projects that could have burdened small businesses across the state.

• The Collins Condominium Association, Inc. v. Riveiro: defending a judgment upholding rights to attorneys’ fees as “prevailing party” despite withdrawing the initial legal action where the client’s complaint triggered corrective action.

• Rasor v. In Re: Estate of Rasor: winning reversal of an order to strike an action by a personal representative in probate proceedings and thereby providing an important clarification on timing of notice periods.

• Foshee v. Banks: upheld a federal district court’s dismissal of a case that preserved key legal principles preventing forum-shopping by plaintiffs

• Matthew Jacocks v. Capital Commercial Real Estate Group, Inc.: won appeal of an order wrongly forcing a client into arbitration in a legal malpractice suit.

• Lif v. In Re Estate of Lif: upholding the rights of an estate’s beneficiary to compel the appointment of an administrator ad litem where the estate’s Personal Representative had apparent conflicts of interest.

• Isan v. Isan, successfully pursued a petition for writ of prohibition to disqualify a trial court judge in a family law matter, upholding the principle that improper ex parte communications were sufficient to give rise to a fear of not receiving a fair and impartial hearing and indicating that the petition was filed in a timely manner.