[caption id="attachment_18432" align="aligncenter" width="620"]

Judge David C. Miller. Photo: J. Albert Diaz/ALM.[/caption] Attorneys are debating whether Cole, Scott & Kissane is "judge shopping" as it attempts to remove a Miami-Dade jurist from dozens of cases. Cole Scott, Florida’s largest insurance defense firm with 11 offices, has entered 38 motions to disqualify Miami-Dade Circuit Judge David C. Miller from it cases after one of its attorneys filed to run against him in the August primary election. The move has prompted claims the law firm is using its deep pockets to strategically throw a sitting judge off its litigation by pitting one of its lawyers against him in the political arena. It also caused an uproar among plaintiffs lawyers, who say they would have to start over before new judges in dozens of cases if Cole Scott succeeds. “I don’t think this has ever happened,” said veteran Miami attorney Joel S. Perwin, a former 22-year shareholder at Podhurst Orseck, who is involved in one of the 38 cases. “We didn’t do anything wrong, and Judge Miller didn’t do anything wrong. The entire basis for the motion was created by the moving party, and that’s why it’s a significant issue.” Cole Scott filed 33 motions to disqualify Miller and five sua sponte recusal requests. The motions follow Cole Scott partner Elisabeth M. Espinosa’s April 5 filing to challenge Miller for the seat in Division 8. Questions are swirling about why Espinosa chose to run against a judge handling dozens of the firm’s cases and why the firm moved to disqualify Miller nearly a month before the May 4 filing deadline when Espinosa would become an official candidate. Managing partner Richard Cole told the Daily Business Review on Friday that the firm met with its clients as soon as Espinosa relayed her intention to run for public office. He said what followed came from clients — and not the firm — as they sought to exercise their right to disqualify a potentially biased judge under Florida’s Rules of Judicial Administration. “These issues are really client issues, not lawyer issues. Certain of the clients felt that they would not receive a fair trial in front of the current judge if one of the Cole Scott lawyers was running against that judge,” Cole said. “They instructed us to file a motion asking the judge to recuse himself.” As for the challenge to Miller, a judge presiding over dozens of Cole Scott cases, Cole suggested the firm would face a similar situation with any incumbent. “We’re the largest insurance defense firm in the state of Florida, so to have 30 cases in front of any judge is not surprising. That would be rather standard,” he said. “I have no way to control where Ms. Espinosa runs for judge. … That’s her decision.” MEET THE CHALLENGER The firm’s website listed Espinosa an associate earlier this month, but it now describes her as a partner. Cole said Friday that Espinosa became a nonequity partner “recently” but “not this week.” He declined to elaborate. Critics say Cole Scott promoted Espinosa to bolster its bid for Miller’s removal by arguing a firm with a partner — not an associate — running against a judge would likely face unfair rulings. “This has much broader implications. The motions for recusal have very little to do with the actions of Judge Miller,” said plaintiffs lawyer Victor M. Diaz Jr., who filed a cross-motion in a case to exclude Cole Scott. “It’s scary. It’s an attack on the independence of the judiciary and an attempt to intimidate state court judges that are subject to election or re-election. It should be offensive to every member of the bar, of concern to all lawyers and every sitting circuit court judge.” Espinosa became a member of the Florida Bar in 2007, about a year after she graduated from Stetson University College of Law. She also practices in federal court. Her resume shows she began her career in Banco Santander International’s legal department, served as an assistant state attorney in Tampa for nearly six years and joined Cole Scott in 2014. She is a partner in the firm’s civil litigation department, focusing on defense work in premises liability suits. Espinosa did not respond to a request for comment by deadline. “She is a well-established trial lawyer who has decided there is a calling in her life for public service,” Cole said. Plaintiffs lawyers who knew her said Espinosa is “well-qualified” attorney but said her candidacy seemed like a political gambit. “I believe their filing grounds to recuse Judge Miller is nonsense,” said Mintz Truppman partner Mark J. Mintz, who is litigating a case against a Cole Scott corporate client and did not submit a motion to remove the judge. Here’s how he explained the difference between his case and the others: “In cases where they represent a defendant in a car accident, the law firm can just ask the individual to sign the affidavit, and then file it. In this case, they would have had to have asked (client) Lexington Insurance Co. to go ahead with their nonsense.” MILLER'S LAST RACE Miller was elected in 2000 and took office in 2001, He won re-election in 2012, and the term expires in January. This election will likely be his last. At 64, Miller would have to retire in about six years under a Florida law that requires judges to retire at 70. A constitutional amendment set for a November vote would extend the mandatory retirement age to 75. “This would be my last term if I get reelected,” Miller told the Daily Business Review. He declined to comment further about the race. The rules of judicial ethics prevent judges from commenting on pending cases, but Miller has denied all 38 Cole Scott & Kissane motions to remove him. He also denied two motions from opposing counsel asking the judge to throw Cole Scott off their cases. The firm filed a challenge of one of Miller’s denials. It got an order from Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal, which stayed the litigation in the lower court and issued an order requiring an explanation for why Miller should not step down. Brett Panter, one of the plaintiffs attorney in that case, questioned the timing of the motions. Both sides had pending motions for summary judgment and expected a ruling Friday. But Cole Scott filed an emergency motion to delay the trial, followed days later by a motion to recuse the judge. “Justice delayed is a terrible thing,” Panter said. “It affects everybody because there is a delay. We have a very seasoned judge. … There is no reason to disqualify him.”