[ad_1]
ATL doesn’t hesitate to call out benchslaps, that is, when a court disses counsel for some faux pas that really irritates the judge and thus is not helpful. I am all for that because I don’t think that enough judges call out behavior that is uncivil, contemptuous, or just plain stupid.
I now suggest that there should be a new category for judges — judges who move cases along, get them resolved in short order, and deserve thanks for the jobs they have done. If the judicial officer is amenable, then a bench hug is appropriate. And no, I am not being snarky.
Who do I think should get the very first bench hug? Michael Hanzman, the Miami judge who had the unenviable task of managing the litigation from the catastrophic failure of parts of two residential buildings at the Champlain Towers South in Surfside in June 2021. Almost 100 people died, and hundreds more lost their homes, their possessions, their mementos, and their memories, not to mention the psychic burdens that will forever accompany all of them.
Litigation in these cases can and does drag on for years and years, as the victims endure torture by litigation. Is there liability? If so, by whom and for what? Will there be trials, forcing victims to relive the nightmares of their lives? How much is a life worth? How much is a condominium home worth? What about possessions? Will there be appeals that just extend the misery for them? That’s often the way mass tort cases work.
But this one was different, thanks to Hanzman. Plaintiffs could receive compensation as early as the end of this month. Wait, what?
The judge deserves credit for moving this matter along to a swift conclusion. Not every judge does that. What did he do that made this complex matter conclude in 15 months or so? A number of things.
Hanzman held five weeks of emotional and lengthy closed-door hearings, allowing victims the necessary catharsis to tell their stories. Often, trials don’t allow victims to have that catharsis, which is so necessary to the ability to move on after calamity, after tragedy. That’s a benefit of mediation. The parties have the chance to vent, to tell their stories without interruption or time constraints. In trial, the question-and-answer drill, usually full of objections, does not necessarily offer that opportunity. One participant said it helped that Hanzman knew everyone’s name. That alone helped to humanize what was an arduous process.
Another action Hanzman took was to persuade the remaining members of the condominium association board to agree to the appointment of a receiver to manage resident lawsuits. By doing that, the judge was able to consolidate all lawsuits together in one action, rather than trying to herd cats with individual claims.
He appointed a mediator to assist in resolving conflicts between those who had lost loved ones and those who suffered property losses. The mediator’s goal was to first figure out how much compensation the two groups would receive, and then the second goal to allocate more than $1 billion to be shared among the family members who had lost loved ones. The mediator took no fee for his services. (Contrast that with some plaintiff firms that Hanzman approached who turned him down out of concern that they wouldn’t be paid.)
Hanzman — and his friend and retired judge, Jonathan T. Colby — had to figure out what each life was worth and the family’s pain and suffering. Not an enviable task. And if you haven’t read Kenneth Feinberg’s book, “What is Life Worth,” or seen the Netflix movie “Worth,” based on Feinberg’s book, do so.
Unlike in Feinberg’s case, where there was a 9/11 compensation fund, there was nothing like that for Hanzman to turn to. Even though some families wanted the property to be a memorial, Hanzman decided that without a sale of the property, there wouldn’t be enough money to pay all the claims. The property was sold.
He hired an accountant to assist with economic valuations and held daily three-hour hearings. Colby called it “personalized justice.”
Why does Hanzman deserve a bench hug? If it’s not obvious to you, then you haven’t litigated mass tort cases that come with multiple defendants, third-party defendants and issues of liability, damages, indemnity, equitable indemnity, contribution, and so on, as well as a huge amount of finger-pointing. That would have exacerbated the plaintiffs’ grief and aggravation. Years and years of litigation would have stalled their abilities to move forward.
Hanzman realized early on that it was a case that needed to be resolved quickly and he was able to do that. Counsel for plaintiffs and third-party defendants were instrumental, the judge said, in reaching settlement. Funding came from engineering companies, security companies, developers, and their insurers. Teamwork and collaboration helped propel resolution forward. Hanzman had told counsel, carriers, and everyone else involved in the case at the start that it was not going to be “business as usual.” Delays were unacceptable. (If only more judges would do that and if only there would be more teamwork and collaboration among the parties.)
Was the resolution perfect? Is any resolution perfect? If there is, please tell me. Do you think Judge Hanzman deserves a bench hug and thanks for showing how resolution can be achieved expeditiously in a complex case? I do.
Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.
[ad_2]