Raymond L. Robin

Managing Shareholder

Raymond L. Robin Florida Attorney Photo

Raymond L. Robin is managing shareholder of Keller Landsberg PA. He practices in the area of litigation and has substantial experience in business litigation, insurance, reinsurance, real property and other complex arbitration and litigation matters in state and federal courts. Mr. Robin has represented clients at the trial and appellate levels throughout Florida, including in the Florida and United States Supreme Courts.

Mr. Robin served as judicial clerk to the Honorable Joseph Nesbitt of the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida from 1986 to 1988. He is a 1986 cum laude graduate of the University of Miami School of Law, where he was a member of the University of Miami Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. He also holds an M.B.A. from the University of Miami School of Business Administration and is a graduate of the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Mr. Robin is AV Preeminent® rated by Martindale-Hubbell® and has also been listed in The Best Lawyers in America® for Commercial Litigation since 2021 and in Florida Super Lawyers since 2022. 

 

Admissions
  • Florida
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  •  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
  • U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Education
  • University of Miami School of Law, J.D., cum laude, 1986
    • Member, University of Miami Law Review
    • Order of the Coif
  • University of Miami School of Business Administration, M.B.A., 1981
  • University of Witwatersand, B.A., Law, 1979
Experience
  • Keller Landsberg PA – Associate
  • Duane Morris LLP – Special Counsel
  • Foresite Design, Inc. – Founder and CEO
  • Third District Court of Appeal of Florida, Miami, Florida – Judicial Clerk to the Honorable Joseph Nesbitt, 1986-1988
Selected Publications
  • “What Is Left of the Joint Proposal for Settlement?” The Florida Bar Journal, February 2011
Selected Speaking Engagements
  • “Third Party Practice,” Florida Bar Young Lawyer’s Division Board of Governors – Basic Discovery CLE, May 8, 2008
  • “Proposals for Settlement,” Palm Beach County Bar Association CLE, November 2015

REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS

RECENT SUCCESSES
  • After eight years of contentious litigation over insurance benefits including a five-day trial, KLPA partners, Raymond Robin and Dena Sacharow, prevailed on appeal. First, they recovered a judgment in the trial court for $1,755,436.85 in favor of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida and against Zenith Insurance Company on claims for Equitable Subrogation and Unjust Enrichment. Blue Cross sought reimbursement for amounts it paid for medical treatment of an injured employee which should have been paid by Zenith, the employer’s workers compensation insurer. Zenith appealed. On October 12, 2023, the Fourth District Court of Appeal summarily affirmed the trial court judgment a day after oral argument. Blue Cross also prevailed on its claims for attorneys’ fees in both the trial court and in the Fourth DCA. 
  • Raymond Robin recently prevailed on a Motion to Dismiss in a probate adversary proceeding. He successfully defended a Law Firm representing a Trustee in a case filed by a Trust Beneficiary. At the conclusion of that case, the Beneficiary filed a Supplemental Complaint against the Law Firm claiming the right to disgorgement of all attorneys’ fees paid to the Law Firm in connection with the Trustee’s case. Mr. Robin prevailed on a Motion to Dismiss arguing: (1) absent specific claims of fraud against an attorney, the beneficiary had no standing to sue the Trustee’s counsel; (2) in order to be liable for surcharge or disgorgement, one must have breached a fiduciary duty owed to the party asserting the claim; and (3) a law firm representing a Trustee in a case brought by a Beneficiary owes no separate independent duty to the Beneficiary. The Court agreed, granted a Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice, and Denied a Motion for Rehearing. 
  • Raymond Robin and Elizabeth Izquierdo recently successfully defended the trial court’s entry of Final Summary Judgment for the defendant in a class-action suit in an appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Colombo v. Robertson Anschutz & Schneid, P.L. See the Fourth DCA May 4, 2022 decision, at 2022 WL 1397564. See the video of the Oral Argument at https://lnkd.in/g3Cer3Pg.
  • Mr. Robin and Ms. Izquierdo represented a large, prominent, national collection and foreclosure law firm (“Foreclosure Law Firm”) with its principal office in Florida.  The Foreclosure Law Firm was retained by a national bank to foreclose a residential mortgage.  After the Foreclosure Law Firm filed the foreclosure action on behalf of the bank, in what it believed was part of the settlement discussions it was having with the borrower’s attorney, the Foreclosure Law Firm prepared and sent the homeowner’s attorney a reinstatement letter setting forth the balance that the homeowner would need to pay to reinstate the loan.  The reinstatement letter also listed the breakdown of the expenses comprising the balance.  One of those expenses was for attorney’s fees incurred by the bank in a prior unsuccessful foreclosure action.  The homeowner filed a Class Action Counterclaim against the Foreclosure Law Firm for breach of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Section 559.55, et seq., Florida Statutes, which not only prohibits any attempt to collect an unauthorized debt but also provides for the award of statutory damages and attorneys’ fees for anyone who is the victim of any such attempt.  The homeowner sought to maintain a class action suit seeking statutory damages for the substantial number of borrowers to whom similar letters had been sent.  Before the class could be certified, Keller Landsberg filed a Motion for Final Summary Judgment on behalf of the Foreclosure Law Firm arguing that the homeowner had no claim because the charge for prior attorney’s fees was authorized by the language of the mortgage signed by the homeowner.  The trial court agreed and granted Final Summary Judgment.  Because the putative class counter-plaintiff, the homeowner, had no individual claim, no class action could be maintained and the Court entered Final Judgment in favor of the Foreclosure Law Firm.  In a seven-page opinion, the Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court and affirmed.
  • Raymond Robin and Maria Gonzalez represented a successful Real Estate Attorney and his firm in a professional malpractice case. The defendants were sued for professional negligence by the seller after handling the closing of the sale of his 7,622 square foot seven bedroom, seven and a half bathroom, waterfront luxury home located in Miami Beach.  Keller Landsberg was able to have the Amended Complaint dismissed with prejudice. The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal. Thereafter, Mr. Robin and Ms. Gonzalez were successful in recovering attorneys’ fees for their client. 
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY
  • After Keller Landsberg took over defense of a case from other counsel following adverse rulings permitting the addition of punitive damage claims, Mr. Robin, along with partners David Keller and Elizabeth Izquierdo, successfully defended a major law firm and one of its former lawyers against claims for conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud, breach of contract and civil theft in a two-week jury trial. After obtaining directed verdicts as to the individual plaintiff’s claims, and on the claims for civil theft and punitive damages against the law firm, the Keller Landsberg defense team obtained a defense verdict as to all of the remaining claims.
  • Raymond Robin along with his partner, David Keller, representing a prominent attorney and his law firm obtained Summary Final Judgment on behalf of their clients.  The attorney and his firm were sued for legal malpractice after their clients lost an appeal handled by the attorney.  The final judgment against the attorney’s clients, which was the subject of the appeal, was grounded on two separate and independent legal theories.  The appellate court issued a per curiam affirmance (“PCA”) without opinion upholding the final judgment against the clients.  One of the legal theories upon which the final judgment was based was the subject of an unrelated appeal in the Florida Supreme Court pending at the time the intermediate appellate court issued its decision.  After the intermediate appellate court issued the PCA, the Supreme Court changed the law as it existed at the time of the PCA.  Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant attorney was negligent by not advising the clients to seek to have the appellate court revisit the issue.  David Keller and Raymond Robin, representing the defendant attorney and his law firm, filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision had no effect because the PCA was based on two separate and independent grounds and no subsequent court or jury could decide that the remaining basis alone was insufficient to support the PCA.  The Court granted the motion and entered final judgment for the Defendants.
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION
  • Raymond Robin and Elizabeth Izquierdo recently successfully defended the trial court’s entry of Final Summary Judgment for the defendant in a class action suit in an appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Colombo v. Robertson Anschutz & Schneid, P.L. See the Fourth DCA May 4, 2022 decision, at 2022 WL 1397564. See the video of the Oral Argument at https://lnkd.in/g3Cer3Pg.
  • Mr. Robin and Ms. Izquierdo represented a large, prominent, national collection and foreclosure law firm (“Foreclosure Law Firm”) with its principal office in Florida.  The Foreclosure Law Firm was retained by a national bank to foreclose a residential mortgage.  After the Foreclosure Law Firm filed the foreclosure action on behalf of the bank, in what it believed was part of the settlement discussions it was having with the borrower’s attorney, the Foreclosure Law Firm prepared and sent the homeowner’s attorney a reinstatement letter setting forth the balance that the homeowner would need to pay to reinstate the loan.  The reinstatement letter also listed the breakdown of the expenses comprising the balance.  One of those expenses was for attorney’s fees incurred by the bank in a prior unsuccessful foreclosure action.  The homeowner filed a Class Action Counterclaim against the Foreclosure Law Firm for breach of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Section 559.55, et seq., Florida Statutes, which not only prohibits any attempt to collect an unauthorized debt but also provides for the award of statutory damages and attorneys’ fees for anyone who is the victim of any such attempt.  The homeowner sought to maintain a class action suit seeking statutory damages for the substantial number of borrowers to whom similar letters had been sent.  Before the class could be certified, Keller Landsberg filed a Motion for Final Summary Judgment on behalf of the Foreclosure Law Firm arguing that the homeowner had no claim because the charge for prior attorney’s fees was authorized by the language of the mortgage signed by the homeowner.  The trial court agreed and granted Final Summary Judgment.  Because the putative class counter-plaintiff, the homeowner, had no individual claim, no class action could be maintained and the Court entered Final Judgment in favor of the Foreclosure Law Firm.  In a seven-page opinion, the Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court and affirmed.
BUSINESS LITIGATION (SEE ALSO CLASS ACTION LITIGATION)
  • After a 5-day trial where Raymond Robin and Dena Sacharow represented the plaintiff, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida (“Florida Blue”), the Court found in our favor and entered Final Judgment for Florida Blue, against Zenith Insurance Company for $1,755,436.85. Florida Blue sought reimbursement for amounts it paid for the medical treatment of an injured employee which it argued should have been paid for by Zenith Insurance Company, his employer’s Workers Compensation Carrier. The case included claims for Equitable Subrogation and Unjust Enrichment.
  • Raymond Robin and Maria Gonzalez represent a successful Real Estate Attorney and his firm in a professional malpractice case. The defendants were sued for professional negligence by the seller after handling the closing of the sale of his 7,622 square foot seven bedroom, seven and a half bathroom, waterfront luxury home located in Miami Beach.  Keller Landsberg were able to have the Amended Complaint dismissed with prejudice. The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal. Thereafter, Mr. Robin and Ms. Gonzalez were successful in recovering attorneys’ fees for their client.
  • Raymond Robin represented a businessman who borrowed $1.5 Million from his business partner and signed a promissory note.  He made interest payments on the note for a year and then stopped.  The lender waited quite some time and then sued to recover the balance on the loan along with interest at the note rate of 10%.  By the time the jury trial started, no payment had been made for 10 years.  The lender was seeking in excess of $3 Million.  Based on the defenses raised by Mr. Robin, the jury was persuaded to allow the borrower over $1.5 Million in offsets so they awarded the lender only $1.414 Million, an amount less than half of what he was seeking.
  • Represented Ottawa-based public company, Nordion Inc. and its affiliates (“Nordion”), in a lawsuit seeking damages in excess of $90 Million brought by BioAxone BioSciences Inc. (“BioAxone”) alleging that Nordion was negligent in preparing a Master Cell Bank used by BioAxone in connection with the development of BioAxone’s new spinal cord injury drug. After Keller Landsberg filed the Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of Nordion, the case was quickly settled for what Nordion described in a press release as “a nominal amount … expected to have a non-material impact on Nordion’s financial position.” Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2013.  View the Motion for Summary Judgment and Statement of Undisputed Facts. The case was the subject of a front-page report in the Daily Business Review on October 8, 2013, entitled “Drug Companies Settle Mad Cow Contamination Claim.”
  • Represented foreign corporation in suit brought by Florida corporation for unfair competition and claims under Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act related to a real estate development in Central Florida. Removed case to federal court and successfully had case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Represented national printing company in breach of contract action against customer for failure to make payment for work done. Customer filed counterclaims. Court granted final summary judgment for client on all claims.
  • Represented large produce marketing company in “appeal” to the District Court under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930, § 1 et seq., 7 U.S.C.A. § 499a et seq. (“PACA”) filed by customer that failed to pay for produce delivered. Customer lost administrative proceeding before Secretary of Agriculture. After settlement the client found favorable, customer dismissed appeal.
  • Involved in defending law firm and attorneys in $25 million 28 USC § 1983 suit brought in federal district court against firm and attorneys for allegedly improper action taken during execution of judgment. Case dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
  • Represented corporation in a shareholder’s derivative action against shareholder for injunction, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty after shareholder embezzled funds from the corporation. Court entered preliminary injunction requiring shareholder to return funds. Had defendant incarcerated for contempt until he returned funds. Obtained settlement that the client found favorable.
  • Represented corporate owners of skilled nursing facilities in cases filed throughout Florida against operators. Obtained summary judgment, dismissal or settlements the clients found favorable.
  • Represented corporate tenant in breach of real estate lease brought by landlord. Obtained judgment in favor of corporate tenant after two-day trial.
  • Represented large developer in action brought by employee claiming to have been excluded from participating in leveraged buyout offered to executives. Filed counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty based on employee’s self-dealing. Obtained verdict in favor of developer after two-week jury trial on employee’s claim and judgment against employee plus punitive damages on counterclaim.
  • Represented large produce importer in action against warehousing facility in Pennsylvania on various contract and negligence issues related to produce damage from improper storage. Procured a settlement the client found favorable.
  • Represented owner of assisted living facilities in tort action brought by personal representative of former resident. Obtained summary judgment on all claims.
REAL PROPERTY
  • Represented purchaser in an action for specific performance on a vacant land agreement when seller refused to close transaction. Obtained settlement the client found favorable.
  • Represented various financial institutions in foreclosure actions involving commercial loans.
  • Represented condominium association against owner who refused to comply with condominium regulations. Obtained summary judgment in trial court and prevailed on appeal. Recovered attorneys’ fees for condominium association.
  • Represented landlord in action against commercial tenant for payment of annual expenses (CAM) and rent increases. Procured settlement the client found favorable after prevailing on appeal.
INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE
  • Represented third-party administrator in a suit against five reinsurers on reinsurance treaties to recover amounts paid by third-party administrator on health insurance policies. Procured a settlement that the client found favorable, recovering substantial portion of amounts paid.
BANKRUPTCY
  • Represented debtor in adversary proceeding filed by creditor to prevent discharge of debt based on transfer of assets. Prevailed on all counts at trial with court overruling creditor’s objections to discharge.
APPELLATE
  • Represented personal representative in an appeal challenging the trial court’s refusal to set aside an altered “agreed” order. Appellate court reversed trial court and remanded with instructions to set aside altered “agreed” order and enter order to which the parties had agreed.
  • Represented rabbi in action on a written contract against his temple in the Third District Court of Appeal, Florida Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court (jurisdictional brief.) Case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on separation clause of the First Amendment to U.S. Constitution.
  • Represented Bahamian corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Denver, Colorado, and U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, in investigation by SEC.