New Law Allows Homeowners to Recoup Legal Fees in Foreclosure Cases
By JOHN ELIGON
Published: October 21, 2010
...Michael J. Wrubel, a Florida lawyer who represents homeowners, said he did not believe the new law would substantially tip the scale in favor of homeowners.
“When you take into consideration the amount of money that’s at stake in the grand scheme, it’s just not worth it to them to really be concerned about attorneys’ fees,” Mr. Wrubel said, referring to the lenders. “Every so often, they’ll get hit. The number of cases that that’s going to happen is going to be too rare for it to really make a difference.”...
Read Online at NewYorkTimes.com | PDF of Print Edition
Foreclosures: The Role of the Lenders and the Courts
By Michael J. Wrubel
Published: October 9, 2010
Our evidentiary rules represent standards that have been developed over centuries of time. It is not just the lenders who have disregarded them, but also the courts...
Read Online at NewYorkTimes.com | PDF
South Florida at center of legal inquiry into foreclosure crisis
..."I've represented murderers where I've gotten more due process than in foreclosure cases," said Davie attorney Michael Wrubel, a former criminal attorney who now specializes in foreclosure defense. "The volume is so heavy, mistakes are made."...
Read Online at Sun-Sentinel.com
Justice for the wrongly convicted
...Mr. McGee was sent to prison in 1991. The diligent work of lawyer Michael Wrubel proved him innocent, obtaining his release in 1995.
On Wednesday Mr. McGee accepted $179,000 in compensation from the state for his wrongful incarceration. Mr. McGee joins a growing list of men who have been wrongfully convicted in Florida. Among them are 23 inmates once on Death Row -- the highest number of Death Row wrongful convictions of any state. This number alone should give Florida state attorneys nightmares...
Read Online at MiamiHerald.com
Brendlin's Consequential Treasure Trove
"This language has profound impact upon the issue of whether a completed traffic stop can ever devolve into a consensual encounter without first advising the person previously subjected to unquestioned command that he or she is free to leave. A societal expectation of unquestioned command during traffic stops compels the observation that these stops inherently include unquestioned subjugation by those temporarily detained. Thus, it follows that this experience of unquestioned subjugation by a reasonable person renders the statement that this same reasonable person would feel free to leave the scene of the completed traffic stop or to terminate the personal encounter in any way other than being given advance permission to do so, to be sophistry.20" Read full article...
