The Real Deal Reports on Brewer Client Soho Development, Bahamas Luxury Resort
July 29, 2025 – The Real Deal reports today on a dispute regarding a high-profile Bahamas resort and claims from real estate developer and Soho Development principal Roger Stein that he was “sidelined [from the project] by South Florida luxury developer Two Roads Development.”
As reported, “Roger Stein, a Delray Beach resident and attorney who has established professional relationships in the Bahamas during his real estate career, claims that West Palm Beach-based Two Roads circumvented him from the development of the $350 million Ocean Club, Four Seasons Residences, Bahamas on Paradise Island, after he brought the firm onboard and introduced it to key architects, marketing staff and other professionals, and shared his proprietary information on the project.”
On Monday, July 28, 2025, New York-based Soho Development sued Two Roads in New York Supreme Court for breach of their confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement, which included a non-circumvention provision. As reported, Soho claims $35 million in damages.
“Soho seeks to hold Two Roads accountable for its betrayal of the trust he [Stein] placed in them,” William A. Brewer III, attorney for Soho, said in a statement. “No one should be able to circumvent binding agreements and profit without consequence.”
The Real Deal reports that Stein doesn’t want to discontinue the project due to its potential as an economic engine for the Bahamas. According to the article, “So far, he has received no compensation for his pre-development work and time, future profits and development fees, according to the complaint.”
“If business partners can sidestep NDAs without facing real consequences,” Brewer said, “then every developer, investor, and business partner who works in good faith is vulnerable.”
To read more: Roger Stein Sues Two Roads Over Four Seasons Bahamas Project
To read the complaint, click here.
Brewer Client Former CFO Files Suit Alleging Corporate Valuation Fraud by CBIZ/Marcum and AmeriTex Leadership
July 1, 2025 – A high-stakes lawsuit filed yesterday in federal district court sheds light on how manipulated valuation reports can distort financial outcomes and erode trust across capital markets.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, the case of former AmeriTex CFO Christopher Podlasek v. CBIZ Inc., CBIZ MAG LLC (NYSE:CBZ; formerly Marcum LLP) exposes how valuations can be used to whitewash unsavory business practices.
At the heart of this suit is an accusation that Marcum knowingly produced a backdated valuation report to justify significantly undercutting the value of Podlasek’s equity in AmeriTex — a major infrastructure supplier whose rapid rise was engineered, in large part, by his leadership. As valuation professionals, CBIZ and its predecessors are specifically charged with upholding fair valuation practices that underpin both private and public markets.
According to the complaint, “Independent valuations act as the surrogate for arm’s length negotiation in our economy. When that process is corrupted, it undermines the very confidence that underpins our financial markets. This case is not about a difference of opinion. It is about betrayal of duty, distortion of fact, and the failure of a firm that claims to stand for integrity. The public interest demands accountability.”
Podlasek’s legal counsel, William A. Brewer III of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, states: “When a firm like Marcum abandons that responsibility, it undermines the credibility of every arms-length transaction across public and private markets.”
With trillions in public-market assets relying on accurate valuations, each flawed report chips away at investor confidence.
The complaint alleges that Marcum, under pressure from AmeriTex leadership, rubber-stamped financial projections that violated appraisal standards — ultimately valuing the company at $789 million despite earlier internal estimates of up to $3 billion.
Brewer adds, “This case carries significant implications beyond the parties involved. It highlights broader concerns about the integrity of valuation services in private equity, public infrastructure, and capital markets at large.”
This case urges regulators, investors, and industry participants to insist on the highest standards of professional integrity.
Supreme Court Petition Challenges Federal Rule That Denies Civil Rights to Millions of Unpaid Workers
June 6, 2025 — In a direct challenge to what critics call a "legal loophole," through which numerous meritorious claims have fallen, Dr. Cara Wessels Wells petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to extend Title VII protections to unpaid workers – potentially reshaping civil rights law.
Wells, a scientist and entrepreneur, alleges she was subjected to sexual harassment, retaliation, and abrupt exclusion from Texas Tech University’s business accelerator program – where she served as a mentor – after speaking out about the misconduct. The district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled she was not legally an “employee” because her work in 2022 was unpaid.
At the heart of her petition is a challenge to the Fifth Circuit’s application of the “threshold-remuneration” test, a rigid rule that categorically bars unpaid workers from Title VII protection. The petition argues that the rule contradicts both the text and intent of federal civil rights law and is inconsistent with how several other circuits treat unpaid employment relationships.
In the petition, received by the Court on June 4, 2025, Wells warns of the national consequences of the current circuit split:
“An unpaid volunteer firefighter in Tennessee (Sixth Circuit) may be able to prove she is an employee and hold her harasser accountable under Title VII, whereas her counterpart just across state lines in Mississippi (Fifth Circuit) could be categorically denied any recourse... Such an outcome is intolerable under a comprehensive federal civil rights statute and demands this Court’s intervention.”
Brewer partner and lead counsel for Wells, William A. Brewer III, says, “Protection from discrimination in the workplace should not hinge on whether or not you happen to draw a paycheck. The Fifth Circuit has turned Title VII into a privilege for the paid, not a right for the working.”
Wells filed her original complaint in March 2023, claiming she was subjected to years of sexual harassment and degradation at Texas Tech, and then denied compensation and patent royalties to which she was entitled. In the complaint, Wells describes the inner workings of a hierarchical system where TTU professors Dr. Samuel Prien and Dr. Lindsay Penrose allegedly took credit for her work, subjected her to harassment and humiliation, and retaliated when she complained to school leadership. Thereafter, the University shielded the professors from accountability.
While the Second, Fifth, and other circuits require financial compensation as a threshold for employment protection, the Sixth and Ninth Circuits instead apply a common-law agency test, examining the relationship’s totality. Wells' petition urges the Supreme Court to resolve this doctrinal rift and affirm that Title VII’s protections extend to those whose roles may be unpaid but whose labor is real.
Wells’ case is particularly timely given the prevalence of unpaid labor in internships, academic research, startups, and public service. Legal scholars call the remuneration rule “unduly rigid” and warn it leaves millions of non-traditional workers without recourse when harmed.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide later this year whether to take up the case.
Joining Mr. Brewer in representing Wells is Brewer partner Will Brewer IV and attorneys Jed Sexton and Lucia (Lucy) Arbor.
Statement by William A. Brewer III, Partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, on Supreme Court Hearing Regarding President Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
May 15, 2025 — The U.S. Supreme Court hearing today represented a pivotal moment, not for immigration law but also for the broader issue of judicial power and its proper scope. As counsel deeply involved in constitutional and immigration matters, we closely followed the arguments presented.
On the ultimate efficacy of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14160, the justices appeared skeptical over the order, which seeks to deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. The longstanding precedent set by the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark appeared front of mind for several justices, highlighting significant constitutional concerns with the executive order.
However, it was Justice Sonia Sotomayor's commentary regarding the challenges of eliminating nationwide injunctions that underscored the importance of today’s argument. She noted that the removal of such remedies could inundate courts with countless individual lawsuits. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson further emphasized the risks inherent in reducing nationwide injunctions, potentially undermining the consistency and reliability essential to our legal system.
Conversely, other justices expressed concerns about judicial overreach, specifically through nationwide injunctions issued by federal district courts. Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested class-action lawsuits as preferable alternatives, emphasizing procedural rigor and judicial precision.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised pointed questions regarding the Trump administration’s inconsistent positions on nationwide injunctions versus class-action litigation, highlighting the nuanced challenges in balancing judicial remedies.
The Court’s upcoming decision, expected by late June or early July, carries profound implications. While Trump's executive order seems likely to be invalidated, the broader question of limiting nationwide injunctions may significantly impact future judicial strategies for challenging federal policies.
We at Brewer, through our Storefront affiliate, remain committed to safeguarding constitutional principles, advocating for consistent application of the law, and closely monitoring developments that could reshape judicial authority and executive accountability.
Actress Cindy Latch Battles Unauthorized Image Exploitation in Florida Lawsuit
Latch Seeks to Protect Her Brand After Years of Misappropriation by Biote-Affiliated Clinics
April 4, 2025 – Cindy Latch, a commercial actress and TV host, has filed a lawsuit and request for temporary injunction alleging that 19 Florida-based medical clinics unlawfully exploited her image and likeness for commercial gain — years after her consent was withdrawn.
In a story that highlights the increasingly urgent battle over image rights in the digital age, Latch asserts that her likeness was used without permission to promote Biote medical products and services. Biote is a leading hormone therapy company for whom Latch worked as a commercial actress.
Despite a strict contractual agreement dating back to 2015 limiting usage rights to paid terms, the complaint reveals numerous Biote-affiliated providers continued to use her image well beyond the expiration of her contract in February 2021.
Filed on April 2, 2025, in the 13th Judicial Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, near Tampa Bay, Florida, Latch’s complaint outlines a pattern of persistent infringement even after repeated demands to cease use, a court-issued temporary restraining order, and a temporary injunction issued by the 101st District Court of Dallas County.
As of today, at least 7 of the named clinics allegedly continue to display Latch’s likeness across their websites, social media platforms, and promotional videos – all for the benefit of their commercial interests.
“These defendants were told to stop, ordered to stop, and yet they continued to use our client's image,” said William A. Brewer III, founding partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and lead counsel for Ms. Latch. “Our client believes that this is a textbook example of commercial misappropriation. These clinics and Biote capitalized on Ms. Latch’s brand equity and image to attract business while ignoring the law.”
At the heart of the dispute is Latch’s former collaboration with Biote Medical LLC. Under a series of "Image Usage Contracts," Biote had the right to use Latch’s promotional materials — but only so long as payments were timely and consent remained valid. According to the complaint, those contracts explicitly required that affiliates remove all content 30 days after payment stopped or authorization ended.
The lawsuit says that when Latch withdrew her consent in 2021 and Biote’s license expired, many affiliated providers ignored the termination and continued using her image. Despite receiving written instructions from Biote in September 2021 to remove the content — and a court-ordered injunction in December 2024 — numerous providers allegedly continued to refuse to comply. Latch filed suit against Biote Medical LLC in November 2024.
The most recent complaint cites violations of Florida’s unauthorized publication of name or likeness statute, common law invasion of privacy by misappropriation, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. Latch seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and punitive damages.
The clinics named in the suit span the state from Fort Lauderdale to Jacksonville to Sarasota and include some still actively using her image for their own profit on social media. Most only ceased after legal action was initiated.
“This isn’t just about me. It’s about drawing a clear line,” says Latch. “Professionals deserve control over how their image is used. If companies can ignore contracts and court orders without consequence, then no one’s brand is safe.”
William Brewer Writes About Embracing AI, Alternative Billing Models
April 3, 2025 — In a recently published Law360 article, William A. Brewer III argues the billable hour isn't just outdated – it's a liability threatening firms clinging to antiquated billing models.
In "Firms Must Embrace Alternative Billing Methods or Fall Behind," Brewer highlights the risk for firms reliant on antiquated billing models in a legal market reshaped by AI, enhanced competition, and growing demand for outcome-based fee arrangements. Brewer states, “Law firms face a choice: evolve or fade into irrelevance. To stay competitive, they must ditch the billable hour, embrace AI, and accelerate their digital transformation – before it’s too late.”
Brewer predicts that firms willing to adopt outcome-based fee arrangements will gain a decisive edge. Clients, he notes, are demanding results and will become increasingly unwilling to bankroll unproductive hours. Frustrated, they will seek alternatives.
“As more companies seek legal services that prioritize outcomes over hours, the firms that embrace this new paradigm will gain a decisive competitive advantage. Those who resist will lose ground to tech-savvy boutiques, Big Four firms and legal startups that aren't shackled by tradition.”
Brewer then addresses Big Law directly, stating, “Big Law must evolve now to stay ahead. The firms that embrace AI, ditch the billable hour and redefine their value proposition will thrive. This is the dawn of a golden age. Technology holds the promise of less drudgery, expanded access to justice, and firms empowered to deliver sharper, faster and more strategic legal services. Change isn't coming — it's here. And the firms that are embracing it won't just survive. They'll set the standard for the future.”
Star-Telegram Reports Keller ISD Drops Controversial Plan, VRA Lawsuit Continues
March 14, 2025 - The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that while the Keller Independent School District board no longer is considering splitting the district, a voting rights lawsuit against the district will continue.
The Brewer Storefront filed suit in federal court on behalf of plaintiff Claudio Vallejo against the Keller Independent School District (KISD), alleging that the school district’s election system violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because it denies fair representation to Hispanic voters. The lawsuit further alleges violations of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
Filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, on February 14, 2025, the lawsuit takes aim at the school district’s at-large voting system which denies Hispanic voters an opportunity to elect school board representatives of their choosing. The Storefront is the community impact legal affiliate of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors.
Brewer Storefront Partner William Brewer told the Star-Telegram that the Voting Rights Act lawsuit challenging the at large election system used to elect school board trustees will go forward.
“We are pleased that Keller ISD — in the face of the legal action taken by our client — reconsidered splitting the district,” Brewer said. “Of course, our client will press forward with his Voting Rights Act lawsuit against Keller ISD and continue to shine a light on actions detrimental to the district’s academic mission.”
Read more here.
Chambers and Partners Recognizes Brewer Firm in Texas Regional Spotlight
March 3, 2025 – Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors has been recognized in the Chambers and Partners Texas Regional Spotlight Guide 2025 for Dallas in the category of Commercial Litigation. This is the second consecutive year that Brewer has been awarded spotlight recognition.
Based in London, Chambers ranks and provides insights into law firms and lawyers globally. The legal research company uses in-depth research methodology and conducts detailed interviews to determine rankings. The regional spotlight recognizes small and medium-sized boutique law firms well-known for their expertise in selected practice areas.
“We appreciate the recognition by Chambers and Partners," said William A. Brewer III, founding partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors. “All credit goes to our professionals who – at every level – are driven by the rush of big-ticket litigation. This recognition is testament to their skills and passion for advocacy.”
With decades of experience, the Brewer firm has built a reputation for tackling some of the most challenging commercial disputes nationwide. The firm’s professional staff includes consultants, accountants, investigators, and public relations experts – who all partner with attorneys to create a fully integrated legal team dedicated to advocacy at the highest level.