Category Archives: Real Estate

Attorneys: Thanks-for-Giving Back to the Community

Legal Aid Picture of Litigation Attorney Eric N. Assouline

Happy Birthday Eric N. Assouline, and thank you for your Pro Bono work at the Legal Aid Service of Broward County!

At a time when the front page article of the Daily Business Review is reporting on an $18M legal fee being imposed upon a public company for unnecessarily fighting about every legal issue in a drawn out commercial dispute, and lead counsel’s normal hourly rate of $1,200 an hour being cut down to $675 an hour by a Federal Magistrate to be more in line with prevailing community rates, it is very humbling to discuss “real life” legal problems ordinary people deal with every day.   

I spent part of my 49th Birthday at the Legal Aid Service of Broward County’s offices in Fort Lauderdale speaking to individuals who called Legal Aid for assistance with their legal problems.

I learned long ago, from my former boss Hank Adorno, who taught all the associates at Adorno & Zeder, that it was the culture of the firm to give back to the community.  Going back to the Adorno days, we were paid by the firm to help those that were less fortunate, including reading to elementary school children and participating in Hands On Miami. 

Keeping up with that tradition, Litigation Partner Eric Assouline is seen here speaking to a group of young men and women about how hard work pays off.  Attorney Assouline also received a FLITE Program framed certificate as a thank you for his time.


Giving back time to the community has been part of the culture at Assouline & Berlowe.  As mentioned on the Community Service page of the Firm’s website:  The Firm has been involved in giving back to the community, in the form of time, money, and energy in order to support those who are less fortunate as well as in support of other important causes.

Examples of how the firm has been involved in philanthropic commitments are many. As early as in 2004, when the Firm was just a year old, the Firm sponsored a mayoral debate for Miami-Dade County.

In 2005, the Firm sponsored the Beauty and the Best Fund Raising Program for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.


In 2006, the Firm sponsored Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) Walk-a-Thon in Sunrise, Florida.  In 2014, the firm again returned to support JDRF when the Firm sponsored a charity golf tournament in support of JDRF.

In 2008, during the economic crises, as the headlines were filled with news about Americans losing their jobs, the Firm did not feel it appropriate to have a year end holiday “party” for its staff.  Instead of celebrating another successful year, the Firm made a donation to the Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital for the support, care and treatment of children at Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital at Memorial Regional Hospital in Hollywood, Florida.

The donation is commemorated by an inscribed brick to be placed next to the statute of Yankee Clipper, Joe DiMaggio at the hospital.


Joe DiMaggio Paver

Brick Paver at the Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital, in Hollywood, Florida


In Miami, the Firm donated to the Miami Children’s Hospital, and was recognized with another inscribed brick at the Fountain.

The Firm has also been involved in several directorships for non-profit organizations. For example, Eric Assouline serves as a director for both the B’Nai Brith Justice Unit and Jewish National Fund. Ellen Leibovitch is a director with the South Palm Beach County Bar Association. Mr. Assouline and Ms. Leibovitch have also been involved in supporting the Florida Bar as members of the Florida Bar Grievance Committees in Broward and Palm Beach counties.

On this Thanksgiving Holiday, on behalf of my firm and all those attorneys that Give Back to the community, I want to say Thank you.

Happy Holidays.

Eric N. Assouline, Esq.

Managing Partner, Assouline & Berlowe, P.A.

Leave a comment

Filed under Arbitration, Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Corporate Law, International, Labor & Employment, Real Estate, Uncategorized

Internal Investigations

20150713_173521Our corporate clients find the need to perform internal investigations.  The Firm’s attorneys pull their respective industry related experience to conduct such internal investigations and defend corporations and employees in complex investigatory and litigation matters.

In the current economic climate, corporate scrutiny is at an all-time high.  The public and private sectors find themselves subject to federal, state, and local agency investigation.  Corporate conduct, compliance and ethics have become an issue increasingly raised by private plaintiffs. As a result, our corporate clients see significant compliance related obstacles to navigate.

We have found that our corporate clients can be best protected from such scrutiny by understanding all the facts surrounding the allegations at hand. When the facts indicate a violation of policy, law, ethics, or other measure of scrutinization, the client must respond rapidly and measurably with remediation, employee discipline, and where necessary contacting appropriate governing agencies.

Corporate internal investigations are protected by the attorney-client privilege and can be beneficial for a number of reasons.  A well designed internal investigation can:

  • Identify key facts so that management and/or the board can make a fully informed decision as to how best to proceed;
  • Cease any offending behavior;
  • Prevent future misbehavior;
  • Document the corporation’s response as the facts are learned;
  • Protect management and boards of directors against a charge of being complicit in the misbehavior; and,
  • Establish and create a corporate culture of compliance and openness.

Planning is key to internal investigations.  The plan will address document and data collection and review, witness interviews, analysis of the facts and data, and regular reporting to the client on the investigation.  The attorneys of the Firm are well suited to developing the right plan for our clients’ needs.

For any questions about internal investigations and their legal implications, please call Peter below:

Peter E. Berlowe, Esq.


3250 Mary Street, Suite 100

Miami, Florida 33133

Main:  (305) 567-5576

Fax: (305) 567-9343


Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law, Bankruptcy, Commercial Litigation, and Corporate Law

Miami • Ft. Lauderdale • Boca Raton

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Corporate Law, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, labor and employment law, Real Estate, Uncategorized

The Wisdom of Crowds II: SEC’s New Crowd Funding Rules

CrowdfundingAn earlier Blog discussed Florida’s Intrastate Crowd Finance Act; amending the Securities and Investor Protection Act, permitting Florida-based entrepreneurs, commercial and real estate businesses capital formation through web-intermediary Crowdfunding Platforms.

The SEC has now adopted its Jobs Act Title III (Crowdfunding) Rules; expanding Crowdfunding’s reach.  Transactions relying on the new rules would be required to use an SEC-registered intermediary, either a broker-dealer or a funding web-portal.

The SEC seeks public comment on the proposed rule amendments for a 60-day period following their publication in the Federal Register. The new rules and forms become effective 180 days after Federal Register publication.

The recommended rules would, among other things, enable individuals to purchase securities in crowdfunding offerings subject to certain limits, require companies to disclose certain information about their business and securities offering, and create a regulatory framework for intermediaries facilitating those transactions.  More specifically:

  • Permitting a company, in any 12-month, period to raise a maximum aggregate of $1 million through crowdfunding offerings;
  • Permitting individual investors, over any 12-month period, to invest across all crowdfunding offerings an aggregate up to the following:
      • If either their annual income or net worth is less than $100,000, then the greater of $2,000 or 5 percent of the lesser of their annual income or net worth.
    • If both their annual income and net worth are equal to, or more than $100,000, 10 percent of the lesser of their annual income or net worth; and
  • During the 12-month period, the aggregate amount of securities sold to an investor through all crowdfunding offerings may not exceed $100,000.

Under the recommended rules, certain companies not eligible to use the exemption include:

  • non-U.S. companies,
  • Exchange Act reporting companies,
  • certain investment companies,
  • companies subject to disqualification under Regulation Crowdfunding,
  • companies not complying with the Regulation’s annual reporting requirements during the two years immediately preceding the offering statement filing, and
  • companies with no specific business plan, or that indicate  their business plan includes a merger or acquisition with an unidentified company or companies.

Crowdfunding securities cannot be resold for one year. Securities would not count towards the threshold requiring a company to register its securities under Exchange Act Section 12(g) if the company is current in its annual reporting obligations, retains the services of a registered transfer agent, and has less than $25 million in total assets as of the end of its most recently completed fiscal year.

Companies relying on the recommended rules must file with the Commission certain disclosure information, the intermediary, and the investors. Additionally, in an annual report to the SEC companies must disclose:

  • The securities price or the method for determining price, the target offering amount, the deadline to reach the target offering amount, and whether the company will accept investments in excess of the target offering amount;
  • A discussion of the company’s financial condition;
  • Company financial statements that, depending on the amount offered and sold during a 12-month period, are accompanied by information from the company’s tax returns, reviewed by an independent public accountant, or audited by an independent auditor.
    • A company offering more than $500,000 (but not more than $1 million of securities relying on these rules for the first time) would be permitted to provide reviewed rather than audited financial statements, unless company financial statements are available that have been audited by an independent auditor;
  • The business’ description and the use of proceeds;
  • Information about officers and directors and of owners of 20% or more of the company; and
  • Certain related-party transactions.

Intermediary Crowdfunding Platforms would be SEC registered as Funding Portals and be members of a national securities association (currently, FINRA). They would be prohibited from, among other things,

  • offering investment advice or making recommendations;
  • soliciting purchases, sales, or offers to buy securities;
  • compensating promoters and other persons for solicitations or based on the sale of securities; and
  • holding, possessing, or handling investor funds or securities, Crowdfunding Platforms.

The rules would require Intermediaries to, among other things:

  • Provide investors with educational materials explaining, among other things, the platform’s investing process; types of securities offered; information a company is required to provide investors; resale restrictions; and investment limits;
  • Take certain measures to reduce fraud risk, including having a reasonable basis for believing
    • that the company complies with Regulation Crowdfunding, and
    • that the company has established means to keep accurate records of securities holders;
  • Make available to the public (on its platform throughout the offering period and for a minimum of 21 days before any security may be sold in the offering)  the company’s disclosure information;
  • Provide communication channels on the platform permitting discussions about offerings;
  • Provide investors with disclosure the intermediary’s compensation;
  • Accept an investment commitment from an investor only after that investor has opened an account;
  • Have a reasonable basis for believing an investor complies with the investment limitations;
  • Provide investors notices once they have made investment commitments and confirmations at or before completion of a transaction;
  • Comply with maintenance and transmission of funds requirements; and
  • Comply with completion, cancellation, and reconfirmation of offerings requirements.

Intermediaries would also would be prohibited from engaging in certain activities, such as:

  • Providing platform access to companies that they have a reasonable basis for believing have the potential for fraud or have other investor protection concerns;
  • Having a financial interest in a company offering or selling securities on its platform unless the intermediary receives the financial interest as compensation for the services, subject to certain conditions; and
  • Compensating any person for providing the intermediary with personally identifiable information of any investor or potential investor.

With its October 30th announcement, SEC Chair Mary Jo White said: “There is a great deal of enthusiasm in the marketplace for crowdfunding, and I believe these rules and proposed amendments provide smaller companies with innovative ways to raise capital and give investors the protections they need.”

For more information on crowd funding matters, please contact:

Carl H. Perdue, JD, LLM
Senior Counsel and Partner
Business and Finance

The above material is for information purposes only; and is not to be considered legal or financial advice.


1801 N. Military Trail, Suite 160

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Main:  (561) 361-6566

Fax: (561) 361-6466


Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Real Estate, venture capital

Banks and Brokers – Real Estate Overhaul THIS SATURDAY! Are YOU ready?

CFPB Logo (00158016)

Are you ready?  For what you say?

Little known fact, as of October 3, 2015, the law of real estate, nationwide, will change.  Gone are the days of waiting in the conference room for documents to show up from the bank right before they have to be signed on a residential real estate closing.

As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, created in the wake of the 2008 Financial Crises, changes are upon us, this Saturday, in the real estate world.

The next four letters C F P B will become as common as the SEC is to the securities industry.

All residential deals involving mortgages are governed by new requirements by the CFPB.    Gone is the new – old HUD-1.  A new longer one is coming.

Simultaneously closing on one property and buyer another later in the day, GONE!

All the partners and the staff in our firm’s Real Estate department has worked hard, registered with the CFPB, and will make sure that all residential deals are handled in accordance with these new requirements.

These changes are dramatic.  And we are working on making sure that we are ready, ARE YOU?

More information on our Real Estate practice, please contact me.  Eric N. Assouline, Esq.  954-929-1899 or 305-567-5576.

Assouline & Berlowe – The Business Law Firm

For more information, check:

Leave a comment

Filed under Real Estate

DRONE ON: Will UAV Pilots Fly At Their Own Risk Under New FAA Rules?


You don’t hear the silent rotors of the 4-armed drone flying above your backyard as you sunbath au natural. The $4k camera, however, records in vivid detail everything you’re doing and streams 1080p video to a videographer in a car more than a mile away. Next thing you know, you are an unwilling YouTube sensation.

You’re driving your car south on Biscayne Boulevard, talking to your office on your Bluetooth microphone when, after a bit of static, the cellphone connection drops. Within a few seconds, cellphone-controlled drones, one out delivering a new 55-inch flat screen television from an online retailer, begin to crash into each other and then fall onto moving cars. Chaos ensues. If you curse the periodic dropped call, just wait until you start seeing dropped drones.

It can also be worse, the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] reported that, on March 22, 2014, a drone nearly collided with a U.S. Airways flight traveling from Charlotte, North Carolina en route to Tallahassee, Florida.

With the FAA estimating that, once enabling rules are established, “roughly 7,500 commercial sUAS [small Unmanned Aircraft Systems] would be viable at the end of five years.”

On February 15, 2015, the FAA released a summary of the major provisions of its proposed UAS rules (known as Part 107). While a few of the proposed rules are more liberal than anticipated, most follow the historical view of the agency in treating UAS more like private planes than the concept that they represent for the future. Before outlining the proposals, a short history of the FAA’s previous attempts to regulate drones.

The Pirker case was the first challenge to the FAA’s attempt to regulate small unmanned aerial vehicles [UAVs] under existing policies (Administrator v. Pirker, FAA Case No. 2012EA210009, NTSB Docket No. CP-217). Raphael Pirker used a small, remote-controlled model power glider to take aerial photos for advertising purposes at the University of Virginia campus. The FAA alleged that the glider was endangering people on the ground and property on the campus. The FAA cited Pirker for violating a ban on commercial UAS usage, and for operating an unmanned aerial vehicle [UAV] “in a careless and reckless manner,” pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §91.13, putting it under the FAA’s authority to enforce flight safety. Further, the FAA argued that it had authority to regulate the UAV because any device intended for flight is an “aircraft,” including this small UAV. Pirker did not have a pilot’s license and was assessed a civil penalty of $10,000 for violation of a 2007 FAA Policy Statement.

Pirker filed a motion to dismiss, choosing to challenge the violation on grounds that there is no existing FAA regulation governing the operation of model aircraft, and that the FAA’s Policy Statements concerning the operation of UAVs are not binding or enforceable. Further, Pirker argued that the power glider was not an “aircraft” as contemplated by the regulations, and that the FAA had no jurisdiction to regulate model aircraft in airspace below 400 feet (i.e., navigable airspace for manned aircraft).

In a decision issued March 7, 2014, the NTSB judge held that the power glider was not an “aircraft”—rather, it was a small UAV that otherwise qualified as a model aircraft (i.e., an aircraft under 55 pounds, being operated below 400 feet)— even if it was engaged in commercial operations. Further, it was held that the FAA had no authority without properly enacted rules (as opposed to “policy statements”) to regulate this type of drone, whether or not it was being used for commercial purposes. The NTSB judge also pointed out that the FAA had historically treated model aircraft separately from other types of “aircraft,” so its position with respect to Pirker was not consistent with that historical distinction.

The FAA appealed the decision for review by the full National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB]. On November 17, 2014, the NTSB reversed the judge in finding that “[a]n aircraft is ‘any’ ‘device’ that is ‘used for flight in the air’,” and therefore subject to the requirements of 14 C.F.R. §91.13(a) to not operate an aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.” contrary to § 91.13(a).

Commercial drone operators have been concerned that the FAA will use the ruling to shut down all but governmental drone use and have been lobbying Congress to “open up the skies”. The skies will open up sooner rather than later. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act (Public Law 112-95), required that the FAA come up with a plan for “safe integration” of UAS by September 30, 2015. The newly proposed rules do not eliminate commercial drones but would impose limitations that have been made obsolete by the rapidly advancement of drone technology. A short outline of the more restrictive proposals:

  • Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the operator or visual observer and close enough to the operator for the operator to be capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses. First-person view camera cannot satisfy “see-and-avoid” requirement but can be used as long as requirement is satisfied in other ways.
  • Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons not directly involved in the operation.
  • Daylight-only operations (official sunrise to official sunset, local time).
  • Maximum airspeed of 100 mph (87 knots).
  • Maximum altitude of 500 feet above ground level.
  • Minimum weather visibility of 3 miles from control station.
  • No person may act as an operator or VO for more than one unmanned aircraft operation at one time.
  • No careless or reckless operations.
  • Requires preflight inspection by the operator.
  • Operators would be required to:
    • Pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center.
    • Be vetted by the Transportation Security Administration.
    • Obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating (like existing pilot airman certificates, never expires).
    • Pass a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test every 24 months.
    • Be at least 17 years old.
    • Make available to the FAA, upon request, the small UAS for inspection or testing, and any associated documents/records required to be kept under the proposed rule.
    • Report an accident to the FAA within 10 days of any operation that results in injury or property damage.
    • Conduct a preflight inspection, to include specific aircraft and control station systems checks, to ensure the small UAS is safe for operation. FAA airworthiness certification not required.
    • Maintain the UAS in condition for safe operation and prior to flight must inspect the UAS to ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation.
  • Aircraft Registration required (same requirements that apply to all other aircraft).
  • Aircraft markings required (same requirements that apply to all other aircraft). If aircraft is too small to display markings in standard size, then the aircraft simply needs to display markings in the largest practicable manner.

The new rules are similar to exemptions granted by the FAA under its nearly complete ban on commercial use of UASs. Prior exemptions have been limited to newsgathering organizations (most recently, CNN), British Petroleum (for surveying the Alaskan north slope), six movie productions, one construction company, an agricultural producer, and, just this year, to a real estate agent in Tucson, Arizona. CNN’s recent an exemption was issued in conjunction with the Georgia Tech Research Institute to order to test proposed safety rules and protocols for news use. The real estate agent will be helped by the new rules as the 33 limitations imposed by his exemption granted earlier this year were more restrictive than that currently proposed and included:

  • Operations were required to be conducted by a pilot possessing at least a private pilot certificate and at least a current third-class medical certificate;
  • Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of aerial videography/cinematography and augmenting real estate listing videos (or similar operations), the pilot must have logged a minimum of 25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot including at least 10 hours logged as a UAS pilot with a multi-rotor UAS;
  • Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless: barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons (as opposed to the limits of the new rules about flying over a non-participant).

While some of the other exemption limitations may find their way into the FAA’s rules, the FAA has at least attempted to loosen some of its earlier restrictions.

Notwithstanding the more liberal nature of the proposals, US commercial interests have arguments over the rules based on competition from other countries. Amazon has tested drones in Canada and Google in Australia. Testing facilities are already moving out of this country. Many commercial users, such as real estate photographers, delivery companies, and the like, are concerned that they will be left out in the cold with only large companies receiving exemptions. While I believe that no one can really object to the minimum training imposed on drone operators, technology has clearly outstripped the VLOS and daylight limitations.

So, where will drones take us? To infinity and beyond? Or a legal morass? Time will tell, but we may not have to wait long for an answer.

For any questions about drones, new rules, and the impact on the real estate industry, please contact Michael Greene below.

Michael S. Greene, Esq.


213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662


Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, Corporate & Finance, Real Estate, International Law

Miami • Ft. Lauderdale • Boca Raton

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, Copyright, Real Estate

Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation Proposes Harsh New Mold Rules

Assouline Berlowe

On Friday, January 23, 2015, Assouline & Berlowe partner, Michael Greene, presented to an assembly of environmental industry professionals jointly organized by Florida Atlantic University, ASHRAE and the Indoor Air Quality Association on the new Mold Assessor and Remediator Standards and Practices rules proposed by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. The proposed rules would create minimum practice requirements for both mold assessors and remediators in Florida beyond the existing licensing rules and requirements.

Michael was one of the original drafters, working on behalf of the Indoor Air Quality Association, of the original assessor and remediator licensing law enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2007. The first licensing rules were not established by the DBPR until January of last year and proscribe the minimum educational, experience and testing requirements for those in the mold industry.

The newly proposed rules are unique among Florida licensed professions in providing detailed procedures for the performance of assessment and remediation. DBPR is now deciding what measures and means should apply to both assessment and remediation instead of relying on or incorporating existing industry standards. The closest analogy would be if the medical professional licensing statutes mandated how a surgeon must hold a scalpel. Ultimately, if adopted the proposed rules will increase costs for property owners and consumers as, regardless of the professional opinion of the assessor or the experience of the remediator or the actual scope of the mold event, certain minimum tests and procedures are mandated. The rules are so specific that even the thickness of polyethylene (6-mil fire-resistant) for a containment structure is set forth. The timing of this rule is particularly disconcerting as insurance coverage for mold and other microbiologic contamination has become more limited and more expensive. In contrast to the many years required to promulgate the first licensing rules, the new practice standards rule appears to be on the fast-track; having had its first public comment hearing in September of last year, with public comments closing out on January 20th of this year.

Because certain industry sectors in specific cases, such as property managers, general contractors, engineers, government, and even homeowners, may be exempt from licensing (so long as they do not hold themselves out to the public as mold assessors or remediators), the rules could have the effect of promoting assessment of the presence of mold and remediation of contamination by persons who are also unskilled and untrained in the proper means and methods for resolving mold and fungal problems.

Michael has significant experience in both resolving and preventing construction and indoor environmental legal issues and served for nine years on the Board of Directors of the Indoor Air Quality Association. Michael has spoken on and published numerous articles, see He is available for consultation by telephone or by appointment at 954-929-1899.

Another public hearing on the proposed rules will be held on February 26, 2015 at 10 am. The public may participate by telephone conference. For more information, please contact Michael Greene below.

Michael S. Greene, Esq.


213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662


Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, Corporate & Finance, Real Estate, International Law

Miami • Ft. Lauderdale • Boca Raton

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, Corporate Law, Environmental Law, Florida Bar, Real Estate

Litigation Partner Eric N. Assouline to Speak at Circuit Court Boot Camp CLE

Eric N. Assouline, Litigation Partner of The Business Law Firm Assouline & Berlowe, P.A., has been again invited to present as a panelist at the upcoming Circuit Court Boot Camp for Practical Trial Litigation Skills. 

Mr. Assouline has been involved in a wide range of business and commercial litigation.  At this seminar, he and other distinguished panelist, will share their experiences practicing in the state courts.

Learn tips of the trade from experienced members of the bar and bench about litigation skills. 

Circuit Court Boot Camp (4th Annual)

A Practical Trial Litigation Skills Program (Fort Lauderdale 2015)

April 10th, 2015 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Sheraton Fort Lauderdale Airport & Cruise Port Hotel 1825 Griffin Road  Dania, FL 33004

Click here for more information or to register.

Can’t Attend? Click here to order the home study audio CD. Want the CD now?  Order the recording of our 2014 boot camp here

What you’ll learn when you attend:

  • Case Development & Theories
  • Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
  • Other Motions
  • Discovery and E-Discovery
  • Depositions
  • Oral Arguments
  • Heading to Trial
  • Pre-Trial Matters
    • Bench trial pointers
    • Client and witness preparation
    • Jury selection – voir dire and questionnaires
    • Jury instructions and jury verdict forms
    • Opening trial briefs
    • Motions in Limine, motions to exclude witnesses from courtroom
    • Requests for Admissions of Fact
  • Trial Presentation
    • Opening statements
    • Direct and cross examinations
    • Objections
    • Exhibits
    • Expert witnesses and reports
    • Closing arguments
  • Post-Trial Motions

Full and partial scholarships are always available to legal aid firm attorneys.

We hope to see you there.

Best wishes,
Eric N. Assouline

Business Litigation

SuperLawyer Badge Red


Business Litigation Partner


213 E. Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Ft. Lauderdale – Dania, FL 33004

Telephone: 954-929-1899

Facsimile: 954-922-6662



Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law,  Real Estate, International Disputes, Commercial Litigation, Corporate Law, and Bankruptcy

Miami · Ft. Lauderdale · Boca Raton

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, Corporate Law, Labor & Employment, Real Estate, Trusts & Estates