Class Actions

Class Action Litigation in Fort Lauderdale
Conrad & Scherer has the substantial experience and extensive resources necessary to effectively defend against class actions or lead regional and national litigation on behalf of a class of plaintiffs. We handle class actions and multidistrict litigation, otherwise known as MDL, involving a variety of matters. Some types of class action cases Conrad & Scherer attorneys have litigated include:


• Consumer protection statutes
• Unfair trade practices
• Tort claims
• Antitrust
• Managed care and third-party payer disputes


Conrad & Scherer – Experienced Class Action Litigators
Our dedicated team of class action litigators represent organizations in statewide and nationwide class action litigation in every facet of a class action proceeding. Conrad & Scherer attorneys have experience with motions to dismiss, class certification proceedings, discovery, trial, settlement, and appeal. At Conrad & Scherer, our attorneys also employ strategies to creatively and cost-effectively resolve class action lawsuits when consistent with our clients’ interests. In all matters, we tailor our strategy to ensure that the costs and efforts are consistent with our clients’ personal or business needs.


At the same time, Conrad & Scherer’s attorneys are equally at home leading litigation on behalf of the plaintiff class. Our class action litigators employ the same sophisticated approach to fully develop and execute an effective strategy to pursue class claims.


Fort Lauderdale Class Action Attorneys
The Conrad & Scherer attorney team has extensive experience in pursuing class action lawsuits on behalf of defendants and classes of plaintiffs. Our team has developed a reputation as a leading firm in the successful pursuit of class actions. The Conrad & Scherer team of attorneys understands the complexities that come with the representation of large groups of clients in a single action, and we have the resources available to effectively manage even the most complex of cases.


That same experience is what also makes Conrad & Scherer attorneys highly skilled at defending against class action lawsuits. Conrad & Scherer commonly handles consumer product, personal injury, and securities class actions. We also welcome you to contact us regardless of the nature of your action.


Meet Conrad & Scherer’s Experienced Class Attorneys
Within the Class Action Practice Area of our firm, Conrad & Scherer has several attorneys with decades of combined experience.


It is very important to partner with a law firm comprised of several individuals who understand and have experience with class action cases. At Conrad & Scherer, our dedicated team of class action attorneys will fight for you! Reach out and schedule your confidential case review today.


Trust Conrad & Scherer’s Professional Class Action Litigation
Conrad & Scherer’s attorneys have been fighting for commercial and individual clients for over 45 years. Our diverse team has vast experience litigating large, small, complex, and simple class action lawsuits in Fort Lauderdale, Miami, and across the state of Florida. We also operate offices in other states including New York and North Carolina, and our firm also operates an office in Quito, Ecuador. If you, a close relative, or friend needs legal advice or representation in a class action matter, call the professional team of litigators at Conrad & Scherer today. Our team of experienced attorneys will guide you and help find the most favorable outcome for your specific set of circumstances.

    Founder & Managing Partner
    • School of Law at Indiana University, Juris Doctor, 1973, magna cum laude
    • Franklin College of Indiana, Bachelor of Science, 1969
    • Florida Bar, 1973
    • Indiana Bar, 1973
    • District of Columbia Bar, 2010
    • United States District Court for the District of Colorado, 2014
    • United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 1974

    William R. Scherer co-founded the firm in 1974 with his late partner Rex Conrad. Over the past almost four decades, Mr. Scherer has grown Conrad & Scherer into one of Florida’s leading law firms and has expanded the firm’s presence with offices in New York, New York, Brevard, North Carolina, and Quito, Ecuador.

    AV® Preeminent™ Peer Rated by Martindale-Hubbell® since 1987, Mr. Scherer is a seasoned trial attorney. He has litigated over 100 trials in both jury and non-jury cases before state, appellate, and federal courts. Mr. Scherer’s cases and legal accomplishments have received coverage by major television networks such as CNN, CNBC, MSNBC and FNN and national and local newspapers such as The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, South Florida Business Journal, the Daily Business Review, the Sun-Sentinel and the Miami Herald.

    Mr. Scherer was lead counsel for victims of the infamous multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Scott Rothstein. Notably, Mr. Scherer led his complex litigation team and achieved an historic settlement returning to investors what is said to be the highest percentages of recovery for victims of a Ponzi scheme. News outlets described the settlement as a “huge victory” and a “landmark” lawsuit.

    In 2005, Mr. Scherer served as plaintiff’s counsel in a high-profile commercial lawsuit involving the sale of a health insurance company and obtained, by jury verdict, one of the largest damage awards in Broward County history.

    During the historical 2000 Presidential Election Litigation in Florida, Mr. Scherer led a team of attorneys representing President George W. Bush and personally represented the President in the Broward County recount.

    In addition to his litigation practice, Mr. Scherer has also served as counsel to various government entities. From 1988 to 2005, Mr. Scherer served as General Counsel to the North Broward Hospital District, one of the largest public health care providers in the nation, with four hospitals and nine specialized treatment centers. As General Counsel for the Hospital District, he supervised teams of legal experts in healthcare and malpractice law, and was responsible for all trials and legal actions taken by or against the Hospital District.

    Mr. Scherer began his legal career as a law clerk to the Indiana Supreme Court and the Honorable Charles Fulton, Former Chief of the United States District Court for the South District of Florida.

    Community Involvement/Affiliations
    • American Board of Trial Advocates, Member/“Advocate,” 1989 to present
    • Broward Workshop, Board Member, 2002 to 2012
    • Broward County Ethics Commission, 2009 to 2010
    • City of Fort Lauderdale Downtown Development Authority, Board Member, 1989 to 1996 and 2003 to 2010
    • Franklin College Board of Trustees, 2000 to 2008
    • Judicial Nominating Commission for the Seventeenth Circuit, Gubernatorial Appointee (Governor Martinez, Governor Bush and Governor Scott), 1987 to 1999, 2001 to 2003, 2003 to 2007 (Chair in 2006), 2011 to 2012
    • Judicial Nominating Commission for the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Gubernatorial Appointee (Governor Bush), 1999 to 2003
    • Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Interim General Counsel, Gubernatorial Appointee (Governor Bush), 2000
    • Florida Lawyers for Bush, Statewide Co-Chair, 1998 to 2000
    • Florida Lawyers for Bush, Broward and Palm Beach County Chair, 1998 to 2000
    • Federal Bar, Grievance Panel for the Southern District of Florida, 1995 to 1997
    • Florida Patient Compensation Fund, Board of Directors, 1992
    • Federal Bar Association, Broward County Chapter, Past President, 1982 to 1983
    Significant Matters/Cases
    • Lori Parrish, Broward County Property Appraiser v. Board of County Commissioners, Broward County, Florida, Case No.: 13-023090. Successfully obtained a writ of mandamus on behalf of Broward County Property Appraiser Lori Parrish after the Broward County Board of Commissioners failed to comply with its statutorily mandated duty to fully fund the first quarter payment of the Property Appraiser’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget as approved by the Department of Revenue.
    • Mr. Scherer led his team of attorneys and para-professionals in the representation of a diverse group of plaintiffs seeking recovery of over $225 million in investor losses resulting from a multi-billion dollar structured settlement Ponzi scheme. This nationally publicized case focused on Toronto Dominion Bank’s (TD Bank) role in facilitating this criminal enterprise asserting novel claims that the Bank willfully aided and abetted the Ponzi fraud. After months of litigation, the matter was resolved through settlement resulting in the highest percentage recovery for victims entangled in a Ponzi scheme.
    • In conjunction with the Rothstein Ponzi scheme civil litigation, Mr. Scherer served as Chairman of the Creditors’ Committee in Rothstein’s law firm’s bankruptcy proceeding from December 2009 through December 2012.
    • In 2005, Mr. Scherer co-represented a doctor and health care entrepreneur who had purchased HIP of Florida—now Vista Health Plans of Florida—from HIP of New York. Scherer filed a suit on behalf of his client against HIP of New York alleging that HIP hid financial information from his client who had purchased the company for $40 million. Following a 14 week trial, and despite HIP of New York’s countersuit for breach of contract, a jury awarded one of the largest individual verdicts in Broward Circuit Court history. That award included an award of compensatory damages for fraud and the cancellation of a multi-million dollar note to the defendant. Jurors had found liability for punitive and compensatory damages, but before they could determine an award on punitive damages, the case was settled out of court.
    • Mr. Scherer led his team of attorneys representing President George W. Bush during the historical 2000 vote recount and personally represented the President in the high stakes Broward County recount. Conrad & Scherer’s responsibilities as counsel to President Bush included advising the President on his legal strategy in Broward County and also acting as a key contributor in Bush’s distinguished statewide Florida legal team. In fact, President Bush has praised Conrad & Scherer’s attorneys for their important legal contributions to his success in Florida. The firm’s contribution has also been implicitly recognized in the United States Supreme Court decision of Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), where the high court freed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris’s certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida’s electoral votes in the 2000 presidential election.
    • Mr. Scherer led his team of attorneys in defending a client against a third-party government agency’s interference with Broward County’s public bid process, which put at risk an existing five year janitorial services contract for the Fort-Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport totaling approximately $69 million. The firm successfully asserted constitutional due process violations challenging the third-party agency’s involvement in the process and deviation from the County Code and Charter. The firm prepared to file a bid protest and to seek judicial relief for the constitutional violations if a successful political resolution was not reached.
    • Mr. Scherer led his team of attorneys defending one of the largest mega-yacht marina and shipyards in the US from being over-regulated by a local fire marshal and was able to resolve the matter favorably through the political process and without litigation. The fire marshal had attempted to regulate the shipyard’s spray painting of mega-yachts/large vessels within temporary enclosures – an industry-wide practice already regulated under OSHA. Resolution required multi-government lobbying of the Florida CFO in his capacity as the State Fire Marshal, Broward County Commission, the Broward Board of Rules and Appeals (“BORA”), the City of Fort Lauderdale, and the local Fire Prevention Bureau. If the fire marshal was successful, the impacts to the Tri-County’s multi-billion dollar marine industry would have been devastating. In addition to the government relations aspect of this matter, the firm prepared to seek judicial relief for the constitutional violations if a successful political resolution was not reached.
    • Successfully enforced a $41 million judgment against a prominent real estate developer by attacking an offshore Nevis trust. Pursued multiple court actions in domestic and international jurisdictions, including the Cayman Islands. This was one of the first instances in the U.S. where a U.S. creditor was able to successfully attack a Nevis trust. The case resulted in a settlement of over $44 million for the client.
    • Represented a municipality and prevailed at trial in a $100 million dollar lawsuit brought by a large developer against the municipality for breach of an alleged contract to develop 11 acres of Florida oceanfront property.
    • AV® Preeminent™ Peer Rated by Martindale-Hubbell®, since 1987
    • Listed in Super Lawyers®, “Super Lawyer”, 2006 – 2018, 2020 – 2022
    • Recognized as a Best Lawyer in Commercial Litigation for The Best Lawyers in America©, 2018 – 2022
    • Recognized as a Best Lawyer in Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Plaintiffs for The Best Lawyers in America©, 2022
    • Selected as a “Top Lawyer” by Fort Lauderdale Illustrated Magazine for Business Litigation & Commercial Litigation, 2021
    • Selected as a “Top Lawyer” by Fort Lauderdale Illustrated Magazine for Mass Tort Litigation & Class Action, 2020 – 2021
    • Listed in South Florida Legal Guide, “Top Lawyer” for Commercial Litigation, 2006 – 2021
    • Listed as one of the “FACES of Fort Lauderdale” in High-Stakes Litigation by Fort Lauderdale Illustrated Magazine, 2021
    • Listed in Florida Trend’s Legal Elite, “Florida Legal Elite”, 2004, 2010, 2014 and 2020
    • Recognized as an “Apogee Award Honoree” by South Florida Business & Wealth, 2020
    • Listed as one of the “FACES of Fort Lauderdale” in Complex Commercial Litigation by Fort Lauderdale Illustrated Magazine, 2019 – 2020
    • Recognized as an “Ultimate CEO” by the South Florida Business Journal, 2013
    • Listed in VerdictSearch’s, “Top 100 Verdicts of 2005”, 2005
    • Recognized as “Most Effective Lawyer” by the Daily Business Review, 2005 and 2012
    • Profiled as a “Power Broker” by the Sun-Sentinel Newspaper, 2002
    • Listed as one of “The 50 Most Powerful People in Broward County” by Gold Coast Magazine, 2002
    • Profiled as a “Political Power Broker” by Gold Coast Magazine, 2002
    Publications/Teaching & Speaking Engagements
    • C5’s 3rd Forum “Fraud, Asset Tracing and Recovery,” Miami Beach, Florida, Speaker, “Miami Vice—Unraveling the $1.2 Billion Rothstein Ponzi Scheme,” October 2012
    • American Board of Trial Advocates and the Fort Lauderdale Chapter of ABOTA “Masters In Opening Statements and Closing Arguments”, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Speaker, May 2011
    • BankAtlantic Attorney Seminar, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Speaker, “Unraveling a Ponzi Scheme,” October 2010
    • Boys and Girls Club of Broward County Men’s Luncheon, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Featured Speaker, “The Ponzi in its Aftermath,” April 2010
    • William R. Scherer Jr., Directors and Officers Face Liability – Check Your D&O Insurance Now, Smart Business – Broward/Palm Beach, April 2005 at 14.
    • William R. Scherer Jr., Vital Reforms – Why Everyone Needs to Pay Attention to Proposed Medicaid Reforms, Smart Business – Broward/Palm Beach, March 2005, at 24.
    • William R. Scherer, Jr., Medicaid Reform – A Call to Action, South Florida Hospital News, March 2005.
    • William R. Scherer Jr., Editorial, Recommended Reforms Must Pass in Session, South Fla. Sun Sentinel, June 16, 2003, at 21A.
    • William R. Scherer Jr., Sovereign Immunity in Indiana- Requiem 6 Ind. L. Rev. 92 (1972).
    Senior Partner
    • University of Buffalo, John Lord O’Brien School of Law, Juris Doctor, 1977
    • University of Buffalo, Bachelor of Science, 1970
    • Florida, 1996
    • District of Columbia, 1980
    • New York, 1978
    • United States Supreme Court
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    • U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
    • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida
    • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
    • U.S. District Court, Western District of New York

    Irwin Gilbert is a senior partner at Conrad & Scherer’s Fort Lauderdale office with a practice concentrating primarily on complex commercial litigation, general business litigation, construction defect litigation, class actions and professional liability. Practicing in State and Federal Courts in Florida and across the Country, Irwin represents fortune 100 companies in high stakes litigation. He has been selected as lead counsel for the defense in mass shooting cases.

    Irwin believes that success depends on communicating with the client to fully understand the client’s needs and expectations and designing a strategy to achieve those results in the most efficient manner possible.  He has repeatedly “compressed the timeline” of litigation to conserve the client’s resources and minimize the disruption of the client’s business.  When it comes to litigation, time is money.  Compressing the timeline means getting the case on the fastest track, deflecting delay strategies by opposing counsel and getting the case to a resolution before his clients exhaust their patience and their resources. While Irwin has extensive experience taking complex litigation through trial, he believes that most disputes have the potential for less expensive resolution if the issues and objectives are clearly identified at the outset.

    Irwin’s clients have included banks, investment firms, executives, celebrities, legal professionals, and Fortune 500 companies.  In some of his more groundbreaking decisions, Irwin reigned in fiduciaries who had exceeded their powers, including court-appointed guardians and Assignees for the Benefit of Creditors.  Irwin has also protected business clients from lawsuits, including class action, antitrust matters and trade secrets cases. In several of these cases, more than one hundred million dollars was at risk.

    Irwin has a wide range of experience practicing throughout the United States and has litigated cases in Great Britain and Japan. His original training was in antitrust and unfair competition, defending companies in Robinson Patman and price-fixing conspiracy cases.  He also served as Chairman of the Business Law Section of The Florida Bar’s Antitrust & Trade Regulation Subcommittee and also as Chair of the Florida Bar’s Business Litigation Committee.

    Prior to studying law, Irwin studied physics and electrical engineering and was engaged in government service. Irwin earned his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Buffalo, John Lord O’Brien School of Law and after clerking, began practicing in two large New York City law firms. Prior to joining the firm, Irwin was a Partner in his own practice also defending private lenders, construction companies and commercial real estate developers in complex commercial litigation.

    Community Involvement/Affiliations
    • Member, Florida Bar Business Law Section
    • Co-Chairman, Business Litigation Committee, Business Law Section of The Florida Bar
    • Chair, Antitrust & Trade Regulation Subcommittee, Business Litigation Committee, Business Law Section of The Florida Bar
    • Client Security Fund Committee, The Florida Bar
    • Past Chairman, 15th Circuit Grievance Committee, The Florida Bar
    • Past Regional Vice President, The National Client Protection Organization, Inc. (NCPO)
    Significant Matters/Cases
    • Ullrich v. Welt (In re Nica Holdings, Inc.), 810 3d 781 (11th Cir. 2015). Wishing to dissolve and wind up its affairs, Nica Holdings, Inc. decided to avoid the more expensive route of a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and chose instead to irrevocably assign its assets to an Assignee under Florida’s Assignment for Benefit of Creditors (“ABC”) statute, Section 727.101, et seq.  One of its assets was stock in a Nicaraguan corporation engaged in fish farming (“Nicanor”).  Seeking to sell that asset, the Assignee entered into an unambiguous and unconditional agreement to sell the stock to an existing investor in Nicanor, Peter Ullrich.  Despite receiving a substantial down payment from Ullrich, the Assignee never notified creditors nor sought court approval of the sale.  He kept the down payment and sold the stock to a third party.  The Assignee essentially botched the entire ABC case and himself became the subject of a lawsuit.  In turn the Assignee, facing motions to remove him for cause and for leave of court to sue him personally, took it upon himself to file bankruptcy on behalf of Nica—despite the fact that he had no authority to do so.  Irwin represented Ullrich who had contracted to purchase the stock in Nicanor and who lost millions of dollars due to the Assignee’s actions.  The Assignee happened to be a Chapter 11 Panel Trustee in the same court in which he filed bankruptcy on Nica’s behalf.  In a series of stunning events, Ullrich’s claim against the Assignee was taken away from him as “derivative,” and the Chapter 7 Trustee promptly settled that multi-million dollar claim for a mere $50,000.00, letting the Assignee off the hook. On behalf of his client, Irwin appealed, challenging the Assignee’s authority to file the bankruptcy case in the first place.  Deciding on an issue of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the Bankruptcy Court and held that an assignee acting pursuant to Florida’s ABC statute lacked the inherent authority to place the assignor into bankruptcy.  As a result, the orders entered in the bankruptcy case filed by the Assignee were void ab initio, with the settlements reached therein and approved by the Bankruptcy Court subject to reversal.
    • Jasser v. Saadeh, 97 So.3d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). In a significant decision, the Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that an Allegedly Incapacitated Person (“AIP”) in an involuntary incapacity case cannot settle the case prior to a determination of capacity and that the appointment of a Temporary Guardian strips the AIP of his legal right to enter into a settlement agreement.  Karim Saadeh was an elderly widower who alarmed his children when he decided to remarry.  His children decided to hire a lawyer and have him found incapacitated. After court proceedings, an Emergency Temporary Guardian was appointed.  Saadeh was an immigrant from the Middle East and was unfamiliar and intimidated by the court processes.  In order to “settle” the litigation, Saadeh agreed to sign a Revocable Trust in which his three children would control the Trust.  He unwittingly signed an Irrevocable Trust.  The Trust he signed was plainly labeled “Revocable Trust,” but a reading revealed Saadeh could not revoke it himself.   All of his property was transferred to the Trust resulting in exposure to massive gift taxes.  At trial, Irwin succeeded in having the Trust found void ab initioand also recovered the legal fees his children’s lawyers took from the Trust.
    • Saadeh v. Connors, Meyer, Barfield and Noble,166 So.3d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). On behalf of his client, Karim Saadeh, Irwin sued those responsible for tricking him into signing an irrevocable trust.  In this case brought upon the “wrongful act doctrine,” Irwin sought to recover hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees his client incurred in getting the trust dissolved.  One of the defendants was the attorney for the Emergency Temporary Guardian.  Saadeh sued on the theory that even though she was not his attorney, she had a duty to act solely in his best interest, since he was a Ward of the Court.  The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against this lawyer.  On appeal, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed.  In a case of first impression, that court held that the Guardian’s attorney owed a duty of care to Saadeh, and that a breach of that duty would present a viable claim.
    • Jasser, Mamone and Lycke v. Saadeh,91 So.3d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Karim Saadeh loaned a large sum to Jasser, Mamone, and Lycke who intended to use loan proceeds to purchase an investment property. Repayment of the note was due after the property was sold.  The Note did not contain a maturity date.  The borrowers argued that the note was not silent as to maturity because the note provided for payment when the house was sold.  The trial court granted judgment to our client, finding the Note was effectively “due on demand.” The District Court of Appeals affirmed, adding a finding that the Pre-Trial Stipulation stated “By operation of law the Note was due on Demand.”
    • In re Dack,101 Misc.2d 490 (NY 1979). Dack was a Police Officer who was in a gun battle with a suspect in an alley just 40 feet apart.  Although suffering a head wound, Dack was able to return fire and kill his assailant.  The morning newspaper reported that “witnesses to the shooting” told reporters that Dack executed the suspect at point blank range as he lay on the ground.  However, there were no witnesses to the shooting in an alley in the middle of the night.  It is believed that the reporters either made up the story or they recklessly disregarded the truth.  In pre-suit discovery, Irwin deposed the two reporters, who then refused to answer questions based upon New York’s Shield law, which protects the confidentiality of a reporter’s sources.  Irwin succeeded in convincing the court that, under the circumstances of allegedly speaking to witnesses in the crowd of people that formed after the shooting was over, there would be no expectation of confidentiality.  This case was cited by prosecutor “Jack McCoy” in an episode of TV’s “Law & Order.”
    • Nick v. MPG Capital Corp.,56 N.Y.2d 515 (1982). Irwin represented Norman Nick, a securities salesman employed by MPG Capital Corp.  Nick sought to arbitrate his compensation dispute under the NASD Code.  In this precedent setting case, the New York Court of Appeals (its highest court) reversed the Appellate Division and ruled that because MPG was a member of the NASD and the NASD required its members to arbitrate disputes, arbitration was mandatory even though it was not a term of Nick’s employment.
    • Three Keys, Ltd. v. Kennedy Funding, Inc., 36 So.3d 656 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Three Keys, Ltd., was owned by Richard Basciano, infamous for his title of the “Porn King of Times Square.”  Three Keys and Kennedy Funding jointly loaned more than $16 Million to a developer in Ft. Myers who defaulted.  Senior lender Kennedy Funding went about the task of liquidating real property assets.  Under the terms of an inter-creditor agreement, Kennedy Funding was entitled to recover all its expenses, loan principal, and interest before any payment was due to Three Keys.  Despite a complete lack of evidence that Kennedy Funding had breached any duty to Three Keys, a jury awarded the company $5,345,000.00.  The trial court set aside the verdict.  Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed in a lengthy decision.  The decision turned on the scope of duty under the “good faith and fair dealing” doctrine when the contract grants one party total discretion in determining how to deal with the liquidation of assets.
    • Trade Secret Litigation:
    • Pollio Dairy Products, Inc. v. Sorrento Cheese Company. This case began with accusations of theft of trade secrets pertaining to the mass production of ricotta cheese, but spun into accusations of perjured testimony and judicial corruption.  Pollio won a bench trial, dealing a massive blow to Sorrento.  However, post-verdict, three critical witnesses for the Plaintiff disavowed their trial testimony claiming they had been coerced.  Post-trial investigation also revealed that the Trial Judge’s Law Clerk conducted business with the Plaintiff.
    • Argus Photonics Group, Inc.  v. Dickenson and Panametrics, Inc., 841 So.2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In this case Irwin succeeded in having the Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reverse the Florida Supreme Court.  The Florida Supreme Court had ruled that factual disputes could not be tried in declaratory judgment cases.  The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that, in appropriate circumstances, courts could resolve factual disputes necessary to reaching declaratory judgment.  Argus sued Dickenson and Panametrics for $100 Million, alleging theft of trade secrets pertaining to a unique surgical laser system. Two engineers employed by Argus jumped ship despite non-compete agreements and went to work for Panametrics, a subsidiary of General Electric.  In a separate suit, which reached trial first, Panametrics and its engineers sued for declaratory judgment claiming that Argus failed to protect trade secrets and thus lacked a legitimate business interest necessary to enforce its non-compete agreements.  Careful pre-trial investigation revealed that Argus had repeatedly disclosed its trade secrets to potential buyers and investors without obtaining confidentiality agreements.  Panametrics strategy of a pre-emptive strike resulted in a win in both cases.
    • Gemini Chemical v. Edmer Sanitary Supply Company, Inc. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. Two salesman for Edmer, a sanitary supply company, resigned and formed a competing company.  With knowledge of Edmer’s customers and prices, they quickly undercut Edmer and began to take away its customers.  Edmer retaliated by offering those customers even greater discounts.    In this case brought under The Robinson-Patman Act, Gemini sued for damages and injunction based upon the Robinson-Patman’s prohibition against undercutting new entrants in the marketplace.  We represented Edmer and won a trial dismissal.  Prior to trial, we had made a Motion for Summary Judgment that was denied based upon the plaintiff’s expert witness affidavit.  At trial, we had the opportunity to cross-examine that expert.  After some two hours of cross-exam, the court interrupted and took over the questioning, reversed itself, and granted our Motion for Summary Judgment.
    • Body Worx, LLC v. Basic Research, S. District Court, Western District of Texas. An anti-trust and price fixing conspiracy case.  Our Motion to Dismiss was granted even though our client sent emails which seemed to admit their efforts to ‘fix’ the price of its product on the internet.  How do you defend a client that has left a paper trail showing it plainly attempted to set the price of a retail product by threatening and cajoling a distributor?  By arguing that the attempts failed, no price discipline was ever accomplished, and that there is no such thing as attempted anti-trust.
    • Recognized by The Daily Business Review’s Florida Legal Awards: Professional Excellence for the “Best Mentor” Category, 2022
    • Recognized as a Best Lawyer in Commercial Litigation by The Best Lawyers in America©, 2021 – 2022
    • Selected as a “Top Lawyer” by Fort Lauderdale Illustrated Magazine for Commercial Litigation & Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions, 2021
    • Listed in South Florida Legal Guide, “Top Lawyer” for Complex Business Litigation, 2021
    • Listed as one of the “FACES of Fort Lauderdale” in Complex Commercial Litigation by Fort Lauderdale Illustrated Magazine, 2020
    • Saves 3 Connected Real Estate Deals Totaling Nearly $7M Dollars, Palm Beach Post, 2020
    • Frivolous Lawsuit Demise Greatly Exaggerated in Palm Beach County, Palm Beach Post, August 20, 2017
    • Appeals Court Reverses Self in Real Estate Case That Spawned 8 Amicus Briefs, Daily Business Review, February 7, 2017
    • Newsmakers: People in Palm Beach County Business, Civic Life, Palm Beach Post, August 7, 2016
    • Appointed Chairman of The Florida Bar’s Business Litigation Committee, Legal Learning Series, July 5, 2016
    • Appointed Chairman of The Florida Bar’s Business Litigation Committee, Attorney at Law Magazine, July 5, 2016
    • Appointed Chairman of The Florida Bar’s Business Litigation Committee, CityBizList South Florida, July 5, 2016
    • Trial Pros: Irwin Gilbert, Law360, June 24, 2016
    • Special Report: New Partners, Daily Business Review, March 31, 2016
    • Statewide Business: Firm Shifts Into High-Growth Mode, South Florida Legal Guide, January 2016
    Publications/Teaching & Speaking Engagements
    • Contributor, LexisNexis Practice Guide: Florida Business Torts, Danvars, Mass.: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., 2013
    • Defending Mass Shooting Cases-The New Normal: Liability for Mass Incidents in the Present and Near Future, June 2018
    • Surviving Litigation without Breaking the Bank, May 2018
    • Active Shooting & Liability Coverage, January 2018
    • Legal Strategies for the Construction Industry, July 2016
    • University of Miami School of Law, Juris Doctor, magna cum laude, 2010
    • University of California at Berkeley, Bachelor of Arts, 2003
    • Florida Bar, 2010
    • United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida
    • United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
    • United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida



    Russell O’Brien is a Partner in the Firm’s Fort Lauderdale office and concentrates his practice on contract disputes, securities litigation, fraud (misrepresentation, inducement, transfers, aiding and abetting and conspiracy), fiduciary relationships and business torts, shareholder disputes (direct and derivative), and class action defense. He also has experience in admiralty law, including vessel acquisitions and sales, vessel refurbishment and repair, vessel charter, and foreclosing and defending against necessaries liens and first preferred ship mortgages.

    Russell is the Firm’s Administrative Partner and manages the Firm’s eDiscovery department. He regularly advises corporate clients regarding eDiscovery planning and protocols, e-Retention, and litigation concerning eDiscovery disputes.

    Russell has represented Fortune 500 companies, small businesses and individuals in both jury and bench trials, and has wide-ranging courtroom experience in both state and federal court. Prior to joining Conrad & Scherer, Mr. O’Brien practiced at an AM 100 law firm, primarily representing financial institutions in class action litigation.

    Community Involvement/Affiliations
    • Broward County Bar Association
    • 17th Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee Member, since 2018
    • Recognized as a Best Lawyer: Ones To Watch in Commercial Litigation for The Best Lawyers in America©, 2021 – 2022
    • Recognized as a Best Lawyer: Ones To Watch in Litigation – Banking and Finance for The Best Lawyers in America©, 2022
    • Selected as a “Top Lawyer” by Fort Lauderdale Illustrated Magazine for Securities Regulation, 2021
    • Selected as a “Top Lawyer” by Fort Lauderdale Illustrated Magazine for Admiralty & Maritime Law, 2020 – 2021
    • Listed in South Florida Legal Guide, “Top Up & Comer” for Commercial Litigation, 2021
    • Listed as one of the “FACES of Fort Lauderdale” in High-Stakes Litigation by Fort Lauderdale Illustrated Magazine, 2021
    • Selected as Florida Super Lawyers®, “Rising Star”, 2020
    • Listed as one of the “FACES of Fort Lauderdale” in Complex Commercial Litigation by Fort Lauderdale Illustrated Magazine, 2020
    • Listed in Attorney At Law Magazine, “Rising Star”, 2018
    Notable Experience
    • Represented fortune 500 insurance company against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for aiding and abetting fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud in connection with multi-million dollar insurance fraud scheme.
    • Represented jet engine manufacturer in breach of lease claim and obtained prejudgment writ of attachment on commercial aircraft
    • Appeared before SEC for extensive attorney proffers and client interview in connection with violations of Rule 10b of the Exchange Act
    • Represented company in jury trial for breach of yacht charter management agreement and fines incurred while yacht was in French waters
    • Represented South American business and individuals in cross-border dispute, including challenges to personal jurisdiction and service of process issues under Peruvian law
    • Defended multiple insurance companies in class actions in connection with Florida’s No-Fault insurance statute, including negotiating settlement, final fairness hearings, and issues regarding notice to class members