Welcome to Spolter Law
Loring N. Spolter, Esq.
Loring, a Florida criminal defense trial attorney who was born and raised in Florida, brings to his legal practice skills acquired while working in New York City as a prosecutor in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office and The University of Miami School of Law, along with lessons learned studying journalism at the University of Florida and at Syracuse University where he also studied research methods, statistics and business while earning a Master’s Degree. As a former Assistant District Attorney, Loring appreciates the importance of having strong trial skills and as a trained journalist who continued his education by attending numerous Master’s of Business Administration (MBA) courses, he knows the importance of utilizing research to uncover information of importance to his clients. Loring’s methodical research has sometimes angered politicians, law enforcement agencies and even judges who were embarrassed by factual evidence he uncovered. Here is a sampling of information Loring’s research and investigatory work has revealed:
* A felony theft charge was dismissed when Loring’s research uncovered the “upside” value of the items his client was charged with stealing were well under $30. Florida law permits the charging of a felony theft only for most types of property valued at or above $300. The criminal charge was reduced to a less serious misdemeanor charge and the client, who had numerous previous criminal convictions, avoided serving jail time.
*DUI charges were substituted with a much less serious charge of reckless driving (which was imposed without a formal conviction, otherwise referred to as a “withhold of adjudication”) when Loring obtained Human Resources and Internal Affairs files which revealed the arresting officer had been caught cheating during an examination and the employing police department unsuccessfully attempted to fire him after he was found to have issued a parking ticket on fraudulent grounds. Loring issued trial subpoenas to many of the high level police officials involved in the attempted firing of this officer, so that each could be called to testify as a character witness about the arresting officer’s reputation for being dishonest and non-truthful. Moments before the trial began, the Assistant State Attorney announced the prosecution on the DUI charge would cease, in return for acceptance of a non-conviction outcome on a less serious reckless driving charge resulting in a small fine. This website contains more information on this and related topics.
* Representing a client criminally charged with felony telemarketing fraud, Loring’s research revealed that many legitimate and honest mail-order businesses assign “stage names” to their operators. He retained the services of a longtime executive in the mail-order industry to explain to jurors the appropriateness of having phone operators be referred to by non-ethnic sounding names and the efficiency of always having a “Howard” or “Betty” always answering calls from customers who spoke with staff members using these same names during their work shifts. The presiding judge refused to permit this expert witness to testify on behalf of Loring’s client, who was one of three defendants being tried. In a unanimous opinion, Appellate court judges ruled the trial judge committed “an abuse of discretion” by withholding testimony from the mail-order expert, overturning all of the convictions which had been imposed. It was noted that Loring was the only one of the three criminal defense attorneys at the trial to have “preserved” this objection to the judge’s wrongful ruling, meaning the other defendants represented by their own lawyers were unable to overturn the criminal convictions which had been imposed upon them.
* In an Employment Law case, Loring determined that two separate “write-ups” which formed a company’s basis for firing his client had been purchased from a Human Resources publishing company weeks after the termination occurred. The company had written different dates on the separate write-ups, with each accusing Loring’s client of wrong doing never engaged in. Conceding that the executive Loring was representing was never accused of the offenses which had been “documented” on official forms, the employer then made a significant settlement payment to the client. This website contains more information on this and related topics.
* Representing an African American driver fired for causing minor damage to a truck during a brief probationary period after being hired, Loring obtained documents verifying that numerous non-Black drivers were involved in similar accidents without having been fired. Loring’s client, who was the only Black driver working at the delivery terminal at that time, also complained of being discriminated against prior to the accident which left his truck dented but fully drivable. The employer settled the case two days prior to when the trial was scheduled to begin. >>More informaiton on this type of Florida employment law.
* Concerned that one particular judge who treated harshly the employment discrimination cases brought by persons fired from their jobs was assigned to preside over so many of the employment law cases he was filing, Loring retained the services of a statistics professor from Florida Atlantic University, whose detailed mathematical calculations concluded that the “pattern” of so many cases being assigned to one of approximately 25 judges could not be explained by the “blind random assignment process” cited by the Court’s published local rules as the system by which cases were allocated. Loring also found published reports that this same judge had admitted he had previously removed cases from other judges and selected new judges to receive these cases, though the same published rules banned non-random case assignment. Later, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida revised its local rules, without making an announcement, stating it would steer cases to judges via a system not reliant on the pure randomness which had previously declared was the technique by which it previously claimed made use of an impartial system. Loring also revealed that the judge had violated federal law by forbidding public release of annual financial disclosure reports which all judges must file, so litigants, news reporters and others could verify a lack of a financial conflict of interest. After ordered by a U.S. Supreme Court Justice to once again permit public dissemination of documents which for decades had been mandated to made available to all those seeking them, this same judge then filed personal financial disclosure reports which were incomplete or had information blotted out, in violation of the Federal Government’s Ethics in Government Act. Earlier, Loring included in other legal pleadings documents verifying this same judge hired virtually all of his law clerks (new lawyers who assist judges by conducting research and drafting court rulings) from a new, partially accredited law school whose faculty openly promotes having strong political and religious ties to organizations opposing workplace opportunities for certain minorities and women who wish to return to work after giving birth to children. Loring is currently writing a book on his research findings titled “They Call Him The Honorable: A true account of the Federal Court and The Florida Bar punishing an attorney trained in investigative news reporting for revealing what he uncovered about a U.S. District Court Judge.” To review a summary of the not yet published book’s contents, or to request you be contacted to be provided with a no-obligation opportunity to purchase the book once it is published, click on the horizontal bar at the top of this home page at “Loring’s Book.”
Navigate to Practice Areas and Loring’s Articles for more information.
Please also visit:
