X
August 2020 Millar's JurisDiction - Waste Not, Want Not

by Richard W. Millar, Jr.

The title is an old proverb that I heard growing up, mostly in the context of rationing during World War II. According to the source of all knowledge—the internet via Google—it was perhaps coined in 1800, which despite outward appearances, was before my time.

It means “if you use a commodity or resource carefully and without extravagance you will never be in need.” During wartime its meaning shifted somewhat to along the lines of “you better use it carefully, because you are not going to get a replacement for a very long time.”

The phrase has fallen into disuse as we now live in what I refer to as a “Bic Pen Society” where everything is disposable. Priceless antiques languish with estate sellers as children and grandchildren prefer Crate & Barrel to Chippendale.

In law, we think of waste in the more specific form of destruction of real property, rather than the more general concept of a waste of resources.

At least until now.

On June 9, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court suspended a lawyer named Scot Strems from the practice of law “until further order of this Court.”

His offense: waste. Specifically, the waste of judicial resources.

Mr. Strems is the owner of the Strem’s Law Firm which specializes in representing property owners against their property insurers and “boasts approximately 20 attorneys across 6 offices who have a combined 128 years of experience.” According to testimony, the firm handles as many as 10,000 cases at the same time and one associate’s caseload was some 700 cases.

To quote from the Florida Bar’s “Petition for Emergency Suspension,” Mr. Strems “sits at the head of a vast campaign of unprofessional, unethical, and fraudulent conduct that now infects courts and communities across the state.” He sounds like a one-man virus, but I digress.

The Bar’s petition runs forty-seven pages or, without regard to type size, roughly 75% of the usual length of this magazine. It summarizes some eighteen cases handled by Mr. Strems’s firm that involved a pattern of delays, discovery and other sanctions, failure to follow rules of procedure, false and misleading testimony, violations of court orders, pursuing cases after clients had died, and the like, usually leading to the dismissals of the clients’ claims.

According to the petition, “In many if not most cases, [the firm] will file separate lawsuits for separate alleged losses even though they occur under the same policy, at the same property, and at the same time.” Then, “its water mitigation company of choice . . . subsequently files multiple lawsuits . . . relating to the same losses.”

In one instance, a purported plaintiff, Ms. Rodriguez had originally refused to appear for deposition. When it was finally taken, she testified she had previously refused because Mr. Strem’s firm did not represent her, she had not authorized any suit, and claimed that her signature had been forged on a retainer agreement.

In another instance, facing a contempt hearing, the firm finally filed answers to interrogatories, but two weeks later it was discovered that its client was deceased when she supposedly answered the interrogatories.

In my favorite reported colloquy, the trial court, in addressing a firm lawyer about an affidavit by Mr. Strem, had the following exchange:

The Court: It’s stunning lack of candor. I’m flabbergasted that a lawyer would risk his or her career to make false claims.

Lawyer: Your Honor—
What else do you want me to say?

Lawyer: Respectfully, I think that the Court needs to look at this from the 30,000-level view. There were EUOs requested—

The Court: What on earth does that mean?

The Court: Oh, I was looking at the small picture?

Well, it is safe to say the Supreme Court was looking at the big picture. Perhaps this old proverb should be given new life as a maxim of jurisprudence.

 

Richard W. Millar, Jr. is Of Counsel with the firm of Friedman Stroffe & Gerard in Irvine. He can be reached at rmillar@fsglawyers.com.