In this episode of Courtside, Etan and Jose sit down with appellate attorney Deija Lifshitz to explore the differences between government and private practice, how appellate thinking shapes litigation strategy, and why preserving issues for appeal can make or break a case.

They discuss jury perception, the hidden role of appellate counsel during trial, malpractice pressure, and the often-overlooked importance of jury instructions. The conversation also touches on where the profession may be heading, including the early role of AI in shaping how cases are analyzed and decided.

From courtroom tactics to the structure of legal decision-making, this episode examines how cases are actually won—and how lawyers think beyond the moment.

Disclaimer: Courtside episodes are for general information only and are not legal advice.

In this episode of Courtside, Etan and Jose sit down with Bal Harbour Mayor Seth E. Salver to unpack Florida’s Live Local Act, the Bal Harbour Shops dispute, and what’s at stake for residents. They discuss how Live Local reshapes zoning and approvals, the real incentives behind “affordable housing” proposals, infrastructure strain, and the tension between Tallahassee’s legislative authority and municipal governance.

From transparency and public service to density, FAR transfers, and the long-term character of one of South Florida’s most unique communities, this conversation explores how housing policy plays out on the ground — and why Bal Harbour is pushing back.

Disclaimer: Courtside episodes are for general information only and are not legal advice.

In Episode 8 of Courtside, Etan and Jose break down the Drake v. UMG dispute over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” exploring whether calling someone a “pedophile” in a song can ever qualify as defamation per se—or whether context and artistic expression protect even the sharpest lyrical attacks. They compare the case to Elon Musk’s “pedo guy” litigation and examine how courts decide what a reasonable listener would believe.

Then the conversation pivots to presidential tariffs and constitutional authority. Are tariffs taxes? Can the executive branch impose sweeping trade measures under emergency powers? And how does statutory interpretation shape the boundaries between Congress and the President?

From diss tracks to trade wars, this episode explores how context, language, and power define liability.

In this episode, we dig into one of the most uncomfortable questions in the legal profession: are the firms that reward aggression, intimidation, and “bulldog” behavior actually delivering better results for clients?

Drawing on real law-firm experiences, team-sport analogies, and high-stakes examples from outside the legal world — including Boeing, Tylenol, and Zappos — the conversation explores how culture is really formed, what behaviors firms reward (and punish), and whether strong culture improves performance rather than softens it.

This isn’t about being “nice” it’s about accountability, intensity, teamwork — and why law is a team sport, even when clients think they’re hiring a lone gladiator.

Conversation with MF&H partners, Etan Mark and José Ferrer.

In this episode of Courtside, we dig into AI liability through a series of real-world scenarios and uncomfortable hypotheticals: a Waymo ride with no driver, passengers with no real ability to intervene, what “emergency response” looks like when there’s no human to call 911, and why the terms you clicked through may matter more than you think.

We also look ahead: Tesla robotaxi-style fleets, self-driving semis, and why the future of these cases may come down to data trails and “black box” forensics—changing how lawyers investigate, prove fault, and value cases.

Guest: Ashley Robinson

Key topics

• Waymo liability: pedestrians, property, and passenger injuries
• Waivers, assumption of risk, and arbitration clauses
• “Kill switch” / what passengers can do when things go wrong
• Why the next era of litigation is data + forensic tracing

Disclaimer: Courtside episodes are for general information only and are not legal advice.

Is that legal? How are private parking operators getting drivers’ home addresses? And what happens when hidden arbitration clauses and data access collide with federal privacy law?

In this episode, we sit down with MF&H litigator Charlie Garabedian, who is leading putative class actions against private parking operators that use license-plate cameras, mass-mail penalty invoices, and allegedly access DMV records in ways that may violate the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).

We dig into:
— How these systems track entry/exit times and auto-generate “gotcha” fees
— The difference between a lawful ticket and a private invoice
— Why arbitration clauses on tiny parking-lot signs may be unenforceable
— The consumer privacy implications of pulling DMV data
— Why these cases resonate so strongly with the public

As Charlie explains, these aren’t minor annoyances — for many people, a $115 charge means choosing between paying a notice and paying for groceries. And under the DPPA, improper access to protected driver information can trigger minimum statutory damages of $2,500 per violation.

The conversation begins with the viral Cardi B civil trial, where a $24 million damages demand, unfocused cross-examination, and tone-deaf questioning turned a winnable case into a cautionary tale. The panel breaks down why juries punish overswinging, how open-ended questions can hand control to a witness, and why likability matters as much as legal theory in a jury trial.

The discussion then pivots to Boeing’s ongoing litigation fallout from the 737 MAX crashes, examining how internal warnings, disclosure failures, and alleged cover-ups escalated legal exposure across wrongful death claims, securities actions, and government enforcement. The episode explores what defense counsel should do when safety, whistleblowers, and public trust collide—and why hiding bad facts almost always makes things worse.

Across both cases, the takeaway is clear: you can survive bad facts, but you can’t survive a loss of credibility.

Courtside with MF&H offers candid, real-world insights into litigation strategy, courtroom dynamics, and the legal decisions that shape outcomes long before a verdict is read.

In this episode of Courtside, the MF&H team breaks down two of the most misunderstood — and most abused — areas of modern law: non-compete agreements and TCPA spam-text lawsuits. With New York companies and employees pouring into Florida, the panel examines why Florida’s employer-friendly rules shock newcomers, when a non-compete is actually enforceable, and how judges draw the line between legitimate business protection and unreasonable restraint. Then the conversation turns to TCPA litigation, revealing how spam-text laws originally meant to stop robo-calls have evolved into existential threats for small businesses. From opportunistic plaintiffs to class-action exposure in the hundreds of millions, this episode gives a candid look at what companies — and employees — are really up against.

In this first episode, Etan Mark and José Ferrer explore the line between innovation and accountability - when life-changing drugs and self-driving cars collide with the realities of product liability. From failure-to-warn claims and deep-pocket defendants to the blurred edges between cosmetic and medical use, they unpack how strategy, causation, and culture shape today's most consequential cases.