Represented a prominent local law firm and one of its partners in a case filed by a disappointed would-be beneficiary husband who challenged the provisions of a Special Needs Trust the law firm drafted for his disabled wife’s benefit. The plaintiff asserted claims for legal malpractice, professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, alleging the attorney (who represented the wife’s guardian) failed to adequately protect the wife and him from self-dealing and misappropriation of assets by the trustees appointed to administer the Special Needs Trust. Jose prevailed on summary judgment, convincing the court that the plaintiff lacked standing to maintain a legal malpractice action against the law firm and the partner and, further, that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants fell below the standard of care in drafting the Special Needs Trust.

Obtained the dismissal with prejudice of a lawsuit asserting claims for defamation and tortious interference against an Am Law 100 law firm headquartered in Florida and one of its former partners. The claims against the former partner were dismissed on personal jurisdiction grounds, and the court also granted the law firm’s motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. Jose successfully handled the appeal, which resulted in an affirmance of the order of dismissal by the Third District Court of Appeal.

Obtained the dismissal with prejudice of a lawsuit filed by the deceased client’s wife asserting claims for legal malpractice, professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, and breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that the law firm and one of its partners failed to prepare an estate plan in a timely manner before the decedent passed away. The trial court dismissed the wife’s claims with prejudice, finding she lacked standing to bring those claims against the law firm because she was not the client and could not demonstrate that the decedent’s testamentary intent, as expressed in a will or other testamentary instrument, was frustrated. The order of dismissal was affirmed on appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal.

Represented a bank in a dispute following the sale of foreclosed property. After years of contentious litigation, the team prevailed in a week-long trial, during which the plaintiff was forced to voluntarily dismiss his claims when it was revealed that he had failed to disclose critical evidence previously withheld, which established that his entire claim was a fraud on the court. The plaintiff also agreed to the relief requested in the defendant bank’s counterclaim, and the court reserved jurisdiction to award attorneys’ fees and costs to the bank. The case was later resolved with the plaintiff and the closing attorney in a confidential settlement.