This Herald-Tribune Hot Topics forum is titled “2012 Real Estate: The Year of the Short Sale”. Real estate experts will examine the local market and how the ‘shadow inventory’ will affect foreclosures and short sales, property values, sales volume, and our economic recovery.

WHEN: Wednesday, February 22nd, from 5:30 to 7:00
(doors open at 5:00)
WHERE: Mildred Sainer Pavilion, 5313 Bay Shore Road.

Jack McCabe, national real estate and economic analyst, will provide us with his outlook for real estate in Southwest Florida, followed by a panel discussion, then audience Q&A.

Herald-Tribune Opinion Editor Tom Tryon will moderate the panel.

Panelists will include:
- Michael Braga, Business Reports/Commercial RE, Herald-Tribune
- Harold Bubil, Real Estate Editor, Herald-Tribune
- Nancy Cason, Real Estate Attorney, SMRL
- Thomas Avrutis, Litigation Attorney, Hodges, Avrutis & Foeller, P.A.

H-T Hot Topics are free and open to the public, but seats must be reserved in advance.
Please RSVP to 361-4065 by Friday, February 10th
or email Danielle.Brown@HeraldTribune.com

F. Scott Westheimer

The anonymous peer findings present an overall rating of a candidate’s general ethical standards and legal ability. Legal Ability ratings are based on performance in five key areas including legal knowledge, analytical capabilities, judgment, communications ability and legal experience. Ethical standard ratings are related to conduct, reliability and diligence in the performance of the job.

Westheimer, immediate past president of Sarasota County Bar Association, has been managing partner at Syprett Meshad since 2002. He is admitted to practice in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, and Florida State Courts. His practice involves primarily the representation of plaintiffs in personal injury matters and various aspects of commercial litigation. He has handled cases involving complex personal injury, motorcycle and automobile accidents with severe injuries, premises liability matters, product liabilities’ litigation, medical malpractice litigation, and commercial litigation.

Syprett Meshad was established in 1967. The firm, with a staff of 24 including attorneys, paralegals and other professionals, provides prompt, experienced legal representation in the practice areas of real estate, personal injury, family law, litigation, business and corporate law. In addition to serving the local community, Syprett Meshad serves as a legal advisor to national and international businesses. The firm is located at 1900 Ringling Boulevard in downtown Sarasota. For more information, call 941.365.7171.

###

AV Preeminent and BV Distinguished are certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies.
—

Press Release Media Contact:
Grace Carlson, APR, LEED G.A.
(941) 362-3011 or Grace@CarlsonEcoMarketing.com

Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Calming of people in housing jam is lawyer’s first task

Jesse Butler is an attorney at Syprett, Meshad, Resnick, Lieb, Dumbaugh, Jones, Krotec & Westheimer, P.A. and co-chair of the Sarasota County Bar Association‘s Civics Committee.

Jesse R. Butler

Tenth Amendment

by Jesse R. Butler, ESQ.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

History and Purpose

The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791. It was designed to replace a similar provision in the Articles of Confederation. The purpose of the 10th Amendment is to constitutionally establish a federalist form of government. Federalism is a political concept, referring to a government divided between a central governing authority and smaller individual governing units, such as states. In a federalist system, power to govern is shared between the central authority and the state governments, creating a “federation”.

In the United States, our federalist form of government consists of the governments of the 50 individual states, and a separate, federal government. Power to govern is shared between the states and the federal government. The 10th Amendment makes clear that although the Constitution grants the federal government significant power to create, enforce, and interpret law, where the constitution is silent on a specific issue, the states have the sole authority to govern regarding that issue. The result is that in the United States the federal and state governments share certain powers, but each also has certain exclusive powers not shared by the other. Thus, although our federal government possesses very extensive power, the federal government’s power is not limitless, and there are indeed areas in which the federal government cannot legislate.

Debate During the Constitutional Convention of 1791

Many of the framers felt that the 10th Amendment was not necessary. They argued that the federal government is created by the Constitution, therefore it is clear that the federal government possesses only those powers granted to it by the Constitution, making a specific declaration unnecessary and superfluous. Many of the States, however, petitioned to include an express limitation on the powers of the Federal government. Many people, having just successfully fought a war of independence to escape the control of a repressive British government, were fearful that a new tyrannical government would arise to repress the people. To prevent this, some felt that a specific Amendment, declaring that the federal government has only limited power, was necessary to assure that the federal government would not become a new tyrant. James Madison successfully argued on behalf of the States, stating that although he agreed that the 10th Amendment was likely unnecessary, it should be adopted as a declaration to ease the anxiety of the fearful. It was ultimately agreed that such an Amendment should be included in the final Bill of Rights.

When the language of 10th Amendment was proposed at the Constitutional Convention, it was debated whether to insert the word “expressly”, so that the Amendment would read “the powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This would have been a significant change. Many of the members of the Convention believed that the “Necessary and Proper” clause contained in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, would provide the federal government with certain implied powers. The debate over whether to include the word “expressly” in the 10th Amendment involved the basic question of whether the federal government should be limited to only those powers which the Constitution set forth in specific terms, or whether the federal government would be able to govern based on powers which could be derived from the intent of the Constitution, but perhaps not stated in clear terms. In adopting the present version of the 10th Amendment, the framers of the Constitution made a purposeful decision to allow the federal government the ability to govern based on powers implied, but not clearly expressed, in the Constitution. For this reason, the Necessary and Proper clause became to be known as the “Elastic Clause” – it has been the source of the federal government’s ability to stretch its powers further than what is expressly stated in the Constitution.

Interpretation

In 1931 in the case of United States v. Sprague, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the 10th Amendment is, in fact, a truism that “added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified.” This was the view taken by many of the founders- that the Constitution itself establishes a federalist system with limited powers granted to the federal government, and that such a system would exist even without the 10th Amendment.

Nonetheless, the 10th Amendment has continued to be a source relied upon by States that believe the federal government is intruding into areas of power reserved exclusively to the States. For example, the Supreme Court has declared that the federal government cannot force any State to adopt a specific federal law or regulation. When the United States Congress passes a law which requires a State to adopt a specific law, this is referred to as “commandeering”, and it is prohibited by the Constitution. Likewise, the federal government cannot require State government agencies and employees to carry out federal laws. Thus, because of our system of federalism established by the Constitution, the federal government can never obligate the States to take specific action.

However, the federal government does have broad powers to encourage States to take certain actions, by providing incentives (such as extra funding or benefits) to States that voluntarily adopt federal regulations and laws. Likewise, the federal government can often preempt State law through the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2). The Commerce Clause gives broad power to the federal government to enact laws relating to interstate commerce, and the Supremacy Clause declares that where federal and state law conflict, the federal law takes precedence over the State law. Thus, in relation to commercial issues affecting multiple states, the federal government generally can force States to comply with federal laws and regulations.

National Healthcare Law Debate

In 2010, The Affordable Health Care for America Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama. The law was intended to lower healthcare costs while allowing more individuals access to health insurance. Many people strongly believe that this law is a great tool for increasing affordable access to healthcare. However, many other people believe that the law is unconstitutional for violating Constitutional principles of federalism and the 10th Amendment.

The debate mainly involves provisions in the Act that require some individuals and companies to purchase health insurance. Proponents of the law argue that this requirement is a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause. Opponents argue, however, that the Constitution does not provide the federal government with power to compel people to purchase health insurance, and, therefore, such power is reserved to the States alone according to the 10th Amendment. The Courts are currently divided on whether the Act is Constitutional, and debate is likely to continue for some time on this issue.

Jesse Butler is an attorney at Syprett, Meshad, Resnick, Lieb, Dumbaugh, Jones, Krotec & Westheimer, P.A. and member of the Sarasota County Bar Association.

Jesse R. Butler

This year the Sarasota County Bar Association chose two law students as recipients of the SCBA/Richard R. Garland Diversity Scholarship, recently renamed in memory of Richard Garland. Richard was a longstanding member of the SCBA’s Diversity Committee, was instrumental in the creation of the Diversity Scholarship Fund, and was a resolute advocate for the need to support diversity in our legal community.

For its fifth consecutive year, the Sarasota County Bar Association Diversity Committee has selected scholarship recipients among applicants from Florida law schools, based on need, merit, and under-represented minority status, (e.g. race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, physical disability, and socio-economic background). This year’s recipients will each receive a $5,000 scholarship upon conclusion of their 10-week internship with a local law firm.

Valeria Obi recently completed her first year of law school at Stetson University. Valeria, a Sarasota native, loves Sarasota and wants to stay in the area for her future career. When asked what made her decide she wanted to become an attorney, Valeria’s response was immediate- it was a female lawyer who came and spoke to her 7th grade class during “career day”. The attorney spoke to the class about what it was like to be a lawyer, and the qualities one must possess to enjoy the career. Valeria says that as she listened to the speech, she recognized those qualities in herself, and realized right then that she wanted to become a lawyer. In pursuit of her goal, Valeria went on to complete Booker High’s Law Academy program, where she was able to observe trials and speak with numerous attorneys about their work, furthering her own interest in the practice of law.

After graduating from Booker High, Valeria attended Florida State University, where she double-majored in Political Science and English, taking courses in public policy, administration, race, and international law. When she wasn’t studying, Valeria dedicated practically all her free time to campus and community organizations. As a member of the Student Government, Valeria was on the Union Board, the Programming Allocation Committee, and served as Deputy Secretary of Multicultural Affairs. She also was on the Executive Board of the Black Student Union, a member of the College of Black Organization Leaders, and was inducted into the Golden Key and Omnicron Delta Kappa honor societies. She also was a Team Leader for Jumpstart Tallahassee, where she volunteered her time to teach preschool students. Her commitment to student organizations has continued at Stetson, where she is currently a student Ambassador, Treasurer of the Black Law Student Association, and Secretary of the Association of Women Lawyers, to name only some of her activities.

Valeria was placed with the law firm of Norton, Hammersley, Lopez & Skokos, P.A., where she has felt very welcome since her first day on the job. Before starting her internship, she had been told by professors to expect a stressful experience. However, Valeria couldn’t disagree more. Valeria has found her experience at Norton Hammersley to be very rewarding, and says that the attorneys she works with “make it easy to learn.” She has enjoyed being exposed to different areas of the law, which has helped her decide what areas she would like to practice in the future. Valeria feels that this experience will help her both in her career and in law school, and puts her “one step ahead” of her peers.

Howard Williams, also a Stetson Law student, will be entering into his third year of law school this Fall. Howard was born and raised in Michigan, but has lived in Florida since he started his undergraduate studies at Northwood University. Howard describes himself as having taken the “non-traditional” approach to school. While an undergraduate student, Howard travelled back and forth between Michigan and Florida campuses, even as he maintained a full-time job in facility management. Howard started working right out of high school, and maintained his career to support himself and pay his expenses, all while simultaneously earning a degree in Business. After earning his degree, Howard spent several years managing commercial cleaning services. Eventually, Howard became a site manager for a cleanup project in Sarasota and Pinellas Counties. It was then that he was first introduced to Sarasota, and during his short stay he immediately fell in love with the city. Now, Howard hopes to return to the area to pursue his legal career.

For as long as he can remember, Howard has seen lawyers as “people who help people”, and for years dreamed of becoming an attorney. Howard says that although he was moving up and up in his career before law school, it wasn’t fulfilling. He wanted to feel like he was having a direct impact on people’s lives. He eventually decided to take the bold move of giving up his career to pursue his dream, and he has absolutely no regrets for that decision. Howard has enjoyed his time at Stetson, and is the President of the Black Law Student Association, and is a Student Member of the Jacobs Inn of Court. One of his most memorable experiences from Stetson is travelling to the Caribbean to participate in a Moot Court Competition. When he first entered law school, Howard thought he may go into criminal law. However, his experience this summer is broadening his horizons, and he now is very interested in practicing family law.

Howard is interning with the Law Offices of Ingram, Murphy & Rudd, P.L.. Howard has been kept very busy, and you can tell he is genuinely grateful for being included by the firm in various hearings and depositions, and generally being made to feel like he is actively involved in the firm’s practice. Howard enjoys working in Sarasota, and is extremely happy that he has been given this opportunity through the Diversity Scholarship program. He says that this experience helped his confidence, and “puts into perspective” what he has learned as a student. Howard says his internship has shown him that the practice of law is different than the “theory” he learns as a law student, and he is thrilled to be working with “really amazing people”. He believes his experience will help him in his 3L year, but even more so when he graduates and has to make a transition into his career as an attorney.

Jesse Butler is an attorney at Syprett, Meshad, Resnick, Lieb, Dumbaugh, Jones, Krotec & Westheimer, P.A. and member of the Sarasota County Bar Association.

Jesse R. Butler

This past legislative session, the Florida Legislature considered Senate Bill 822, introduced by State Senator Ellyn Bogdanoff. The bill would have caused significant changes to the procedure for challenging the admissibility of expert testimony in Florida by amending Florida Statute § 90.702, abandoning the current Frye standard for the more lenient Daubert standard used in Federal courts. If adopted, these changes would have made it more difficult to challenge expert testimony which is believed to be based on experimental, or “fringe”, science. Florida is one of several states that still adheres to the more stringent Frye standard.

On May 2, 2011, the Florida House of Representatives passed HB 391, the House version of the bill. However, the bill failed to pass in the Senate before the end of the legislative session on May 6, 2011.

In 1923, the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Frye v. United States, in which the Court addressed whether it was proper for an expert witness to testify regarding the results of a “systolic blood pressure deception test” in a murder trial. The Court concerned itself with separating the “twilight zone” between scientific testing which remained experimental, and testing which had been established as scientifically reliable. The Court announced that in order to be admissible, “the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.”  Thereafter, the Frye standard became the general test for the admissibility of evidence in Federal courts and most state courts.

The Federal Rules of Evidence were later adopted in 1973. Under the newly adopted Rule 702, “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”

Confusion between Frye and Rule 702 lasted until 1993, when the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., declaring that Frye had been superseded by the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Court noted that the Rules did not speak to a “general acceptance” standard, and that the intention behind the Rules was clearly to relax the standards for admissibility of evidence. The Court declared that an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method in order to qualify as “scientific knowledge” under Rule 702. Proposed testimony must be supported by appropriate validation—i.e., “good grounds,” based on what is known.

In 1997, the Florida Supreme Court declared that the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence did not require Florida courts to begin utilizing Daubert, and that Frye was the relevant standard under Florida law as it always had been. Brim v State, 695 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1997). If SB 822 had passed, it would have overturned nearly a decade of Florida jurisprudence by directing the courts to begin applying the decisions in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 31 (1993); General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997); Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999); Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 (2000); and other cases in accordance with these decisions.

At least for now, Florida Statute § 90.702 is not changing. However, if SB 822 were enacted into law, future challenges to expert testimony would have to be redrafted, and would be more likely to fail. “Reliability,” rather than “general acceptance,” would become the new primary consideration of the courts in admitting expert testimony.

Governor Rick Scott Appoints Five to Twelfth Circuit Judicial Nominating Commission

Tallahassee, Fla. – Governor Rick Scott today announced the following reappointments and appointments to the Twelfth Circuit Judicial Nominating Commission:

Nancy E. Cason, 33, of Sarasota, is the managing partner of the Syprett Meshad Law Firm.  She succeeds Lisa Bell and is appointed for a term beginning August 16, 2011, and ending July 1, 2015.

Cason’s practice focuses on real estate law, including transactional and litigation, foreclosure defense, general commercial litigation, probate litigation and appellate advocacy.  She also volunteers with the Twelfth Judicial Circuit as a pro bono foreclosure defense attorney.  She is a member of the board of directors of the Sarasota County Bar Association and a past president of the organization’s Young Lawyers Division.

Ronald J. Filipkowski, 42, of Sarasota, is a self-employed attorney.  He succeeds Brent McPeek and is appointed for a term beginning August 16, 2011, and ending July 1, 2015.

He previously served as an assistant United States attorney in the Justice Department, as an assistant state attorney in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit and as an assistant director of the Sarasota Police Academy.  From 1986 to 1990, he served in the United States Marine Corps. 

Kathi B. Halvorsen, 55, of Sarasota, is a sole practitioner.  She is reappointed for a term beginning August 16, 2011, and ending July 1, 2014.

Halvorsen’s law practice specializes in Social Security and marital and family law and has previously served on the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Judicial Nominating Commission.  She received her bachelor’s degree from West Virginia Wesleyan College, her master’s degree from Bowling Green State University, and her law degree from Stetson University.

Halvorsen is appointed from the list of nominees submitted by the Florida Bar.

Henry “Roger” Lutz, 62, of Holmes Beach, is the president of Lutz, Bobo and Telfair P.A.  He is reappointed for a term beginning August 16, 2011, and ending July 1, 2015.

Lutz’s practice focuses on commercial and personal injury civil trial work.  He has previously served on the Twelfth Circuit Judicial Nominating Commission.  Previously, Lutz served as an assistant state attorney and chief assistant public defender in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit.  He received a bachelor’s degree from Marshall University and law degree from the University of Mississippi.

Lutz is appointed from the list of nominees submitted by the Florida Bar.

Anthony “James” Rolfes, 53, of Osprey, is a shareholder with Dickinson and Gibbons P.A.  He succeeds Gary Larsen and is appointed for a term beginning August 16, 2011, and ending July 1, 2014.

Rolfes practices primarily in civil litigation, both plaintiff and defense, and he previously served as chairman of the Grievance Committee of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit.  Rolfes received his bachelor’s degree from Stetson University and law degree from the Cumberland School of Law. 

Rolfes is appointed from the list of nominees submitted by the Florida Bar.

# # #

CONTACT: Lane Wright
(850) 488-5394

Source: http://www.flgov.com/2011/08/16/governor-rick-scott-appoints-five-to-twelfth-circuit-judicial-nominating-commission/

F. Scott Westheimer is managing partner at Syprett, Meshad, Resnick, Lieb, Dumbaugh, Jones, Krotec & Westheimer, P.A. and President of the Sarasota County Bar Association, (2010-2011).

F. Scott Westheimer

SCBA President's Message

Next year will pose a new set of challenges for our Bar Association as well as Florida’s judicial branch as a whole. The next legislative session will undoubtedly include renewed attacks on the court system and renewed efforts to effectuate some of the recent session’s failed proposals to weaken the judicial branch. I am sure Derek and the Bar will have a coordinated plan in 2012 to oppose the upcoming proposed constitutional amendment, which would impose Senate approval for Supreme Court justices; require only a majority legislative vote to change Court Rules; and remove the confidentiality of judicial investigations in certain proceedings. This is a not-so-subtle attempt to weaken the judicial branch and attack the separation of powers as mandated by the Constitution.

Further attempts to block the door to the courthouse and prohibit individuals from their constitutional right to a jury trial will continue unless the Bar, our clients, and the public are educated against the dangers of these constitutional attacks. I highly recommend viewing an excellent documentary which was recently aired on HBO, Hot Coffee, by director Susan Saladoff, which gives a very in depth view of the fictions and falsehoods disseminated by the so-called “tort reform” movement and shows its real purpose which is to block individuals access to the court (and jury trials). As one expert asks, if we trust juries nationwide to determine the death penalty in criminal cases, why does it make sense then to not trust juries to award damages in civil cases by implementing caps or other “reform” tools? The film also has an excellent view on “court packing” and the risks behind these endeavors. I would highly recommend that Bar members view this film and recommend it to their friends to held educate them on this issue.

I want to thank J. Brent Jones, who pointed out a mistake I made during my last Legislative Update at the June Bar meeting. Two pieces of proposed legislation eventually failed. One proposed allowing the defense ex parte interviews of claimant’s health providers, and another would have set a new clear and convincing evidentiary standard in medical malpractice cases to prove a breach of the standard of care for failing to order supplemental diagnostic tests. Also, after the meeting, the Governor used a budget veto to strike the Speaker of the House’s proposal for an “independent review” of the court system at the cost of approximately $400,000.00.

Finally, I want to thank all the Section and Committee Chairs, Adam Portnow and Cyndi Riddell as Docket Editors, the numerous Docket contributors, and everyone else who devoted so much of their time and energy this year for our Association. It was an honor to serve as your President. A special thanks also to former Chief Judge Lee Haworth, who did an outstanding job during his term as Chief Judge with the multitude of challenges he faced.

Media Contact:
Grace Carlson, APR, LEED G.A.
(941) 362-3011 or Grace@CarlsonEcoMarketing.com

Three Syprett-Meshad Attorneys Chosen for 2011 Florida Super Lawyers

June 10, 2011—Sarasota, FL—Syprett-Meshad attorneys Michael Resnick, Teresa Jones, and Scott Westheimer were recently named to two Super Lawyers lists.  Jones and Resnick joined an elite group of the top 5% of Florida attorneys when they were recently named to the Florida Super Lawyers 2011 list.  Scott Westheimer, president of the Sarasota County Bar Association, has been named to the Florida Rising Stars list. Eligible members for this recognition comprise fewer than 2.5% of lawyers in the state.
Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a rigorous multi-phased process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, and independent research evaluation of candidates, and peer reviews by practice area.

Michael L. Resnick has been practicing family and marital law for more than three decades and is one of the firm’s original partners.  His family law practice features high profile marital dissolution and post-dissolution cases involving substantial marital assets, complex property division issues, custody, alimony, child support, visitation, and modification of marital settlement agreements. In 1962, he graduated from the New York Military Academy where he attained the rank of Platoon Sergeant. Mr. Resnick received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Windham College in 1967 and his Juris Doctorate from the New England School of Law in 1970.  He currently serves on the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee. This is the fifth consecutive year he has been selected for inclusion on the Florida Super Lawyers list.

Teresa D. Jones, a trial lawyer who has been with the firm since 1986, is originally from Alabama.  She received a Bachelor of Arts with distinction and high honors in political science and psychology from Jacksonville State University in Alabama, then attended Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham where she earned her Juris Doctorate (cum laude) in 1978. She has been a certified county and circuit mediator since 1998. She has an “AV” rating by Martindale Hubbell.  This is the sixth consecutive year she has been selected for inclusion by Florida Super Lawyers.

F. Scott Westheimer represents plaintiffs in personal injury matters and various aspects of commercial litigation and has been a member of the firm since 1996.  A graduate of Riverview High School, Westheimer graduated from the University of Florida with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history before earning his Juris Doctorate with high honors from the University of Florida College of Law in 1996.  Westheimer is a member of the Florida Bar, the Sarasota County Bar Association, the Florida Justice Association and the American Association for Justice. He is currently the President of the Sarasota County Bar Association, (2010-2011), is a former President of the Sarasota County Bar Association Young Lawyers Division, is currently a member of the Sarasota County Bar Association Diversity Committee (and former chair), and has served on the Florida Bar Young Lawyers Division Board of Governors since 2004. He has been recognized in the Gulf Coast Business Review’s Top 40 Under 40 (2002) and was also recognized as a Florida Rising Star in 2010.

The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazines and in leading city and regional magazines across the country. Super Lawyers magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in the practice of law.

The Law firm of Syprett, Meshad, Resnick, Lieb, Dumbaugh, Jones, Krotec & Westheimer, P.A. began was established 1967. The firm of more than 15 professionals represents experience in the practice areas of real estate, personal injury, family law, litigation, business and corporate law. For more information, visit smrl.com. For more information about Super Lawyers, go to superlawyers.com.

F. Scott Westheimer

online at

visit superlawyers.com

Teresa D. Jones

online at

visit superlawyers.com

Michael L. Resnick

online at

visit superlawyers.com