June 2016

Neal Sklar, a Partner in the firm's Miami office was recognized in Miami Today’s annual Best of Miami issue in the story entitled "Leaders strive to fix Miami’s Transportation problems". Carlos A. Carrillo, executive director of the South Florida Chapter of The Associated General Contractors of America referred to Mr. Sklar’s leadership promoting public-private partnerships, many in the transportation arena. According to Carrillo, the P3 Institute Conference he put together was a way to get local government and private industry in the same room and speaking the same language. Mr. Sklar's ability to connect people and projects will hopefully accelerate the rate at which we see badly needed transportation projects get off of the ground.”

“Neal is a quick study,” said Tom Sanford, vice president of Doppelmayr USA, a firm that specializes in cable cars, aerial products and ropeways, some of which are used in construction projects. His company’s products aren’t easy to understand, Mr. Sanford said, but “Neal starts looking at the concept, which is not the case with many people. He’s a good guy, and he is very good at exploring a concept and then bringing that knowledge to the community.”

Michael S. Zicherman authored an article titled, "Pay-If-Paid Clause are Enforceable, But…" which focused on the enforceability of a "pay-if-paid" clause in a construction contract. The article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of such a provision for a contractor as well as the enforceability of this provision in some states. While contractor’s often focus on proper contract drafting to ensure that they do not get stuck having to pay their subs for work that they were not paid for by the owner, they have to be just as careful during their performance of the construction project to ensure that their conduct and actions on the job will not render their pay-if-paid provision meaningless.

Michael C. Zisa authored an article in the Surety Bond Quarterly, Spring 2016 Newsletter for the National Association of Surety Bond Producers. The article titled " Joint Ventures in Construction" was featured in the Practical Insights: What You Need to Know section of the publication. The article focuses on how joint ventures have been used in the construction industry for years and how they are becoming increasingly common as projects continue to become larger, more complicated and more specialized.


Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (P&A) is pleased to announce that Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters attorney rating service, ranked nine attorneys from the firm’s Florida and California offices as 2016 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars. According to Super Lawyers, these attorneys were honored following completion of Super Lawyers’ patented multiphase selection process, which is conducted annually through a statewide survey of attorneys, independent research and evaluation of candidates, and peer reviews by practice area.

The firm’s 2016 Super Lawyers for Florida and California include:


Stephen H. Reisman, Partner, 2006 to 2016
Gary M. Stein, Partner, 2009 to 2016
Adam P. Handfinger, Partner, 2009 to 2016
Melinda S. Gentile, Partner, 2006 to 2016
Neal I. Sklar, Partner, 2006 to 2016
Warren E. Friedman, Senior Counsel, 2016 (Rising Star)
Monique S. Cardenas, Senior Associate, 2015 to 2016 (Rising Star)


Alex R. Baghdassarian, Partner, 2013 to 2016
Eric M. Gruzen, Partner, 2015 to 2016 (Rising Star)

[View PDF]

Kevin J. O'Connor was quoted in an article titled "Attorneys React To High Court's EEOC Attorneys' Fee Ruling" in Law360, May 19, 2016. The U.S. Supreme Court found a defendant doesn't need to obtain a favorable judgment on the merits of a Title VII claim to be a prevailing party, but declined to decide if the EEOC must pay $4.7 million in attorneys' fees. Mr. O'Connor stated “To borrow a phrase from the opinion in CRST v. EEOC, the court’s decision makes ‘common sense,’ although it will probably have limited practical impact in the real world other than to perhaps deter the EEOC from bringing claims that are frivolous or where it has not met pre-conditions to filing suit. The court was faced with a situation where the EEOC was hit with an attorneys’ fee award of more than $4 million in a case where the defendant had obtained dismissal, but there had not been a full determination on the merits. The court ruled that common sense undermines the idea that a defendant has to reach a merits determination in order for a court to find that the suit was ‘frivolous, unreasonable or groundless’ within the meaning of the statute and prior precedents. Again, while the case is certainly interesting and a positive development for defendants who might be facing a frivolous Title VII case, in the real world it is rare to be in a position to seek sanctions and costs, so the practical impact of the decision is unclear.”