The Lawyer's Role in Managing the Millenium Bug
It has been called the “Y2K problem,” the “millennium bug,” and the “Y2K glitch.” The possible ramifications have been likened to everything from commercial Armageddon to the muffled bang of a wet firecracker. While the impact of the problem may lie somewhere in the middle, its magnitude will depend on measures taken by governments, businesses, and their attorneys to become Y2K compliant during the next 12 months.
Lawyers clearly will play multifaceted roles with respect to Y2K issues. We will be expected to warn clients of the problem and evaluate their rights and responsibilities regarding Y2K assessment and plan implementation. We will also be expected to protect clients’ interests by drafting appropriate contractual language and making recommendations regarding insurance coverage. Finally, we will be expected to litigate when clients are damaged by Y2K problems.
Beyond protecting our business clients, attorneys also must be concerned with the Y2K compliance of their law firms. This article considers the scope of the problem and some issues lawyers will wish to consider as the clock winds down on the millennium.
The Problem
Th Y2K problem originates in computer chips and programs that use two digits to describe year/date information. At midnight on December 31, 1999, some information systems will not be able to tell whether the year is 1900 or 2000. Many noncompliant computer chips or programming will either shut down or will emit corrupt data.
While it may seem abstract to many of us, the problem is very real. The U.S. Senate established the Committee on Year 2000 to take on the ominous task of preparing this country for the ramifications of Y2K noncompliance. Senator Bennett (R. Utah), speaking for the committee, prioritized what he considered as the major areas of concern:1
1) Utilities, particularly power plants and water treatment plants.
2) Telecommunications.
3) Transportation, including air traffic control systems and global positioning systems.
4) The financial system, in particular clearinghouse operations and electronic funds transfer.
5) General government services, such as Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and food stamp distributions.
6) General manufacturing, including automated manufacturing plants and just-in-time inventory systems.
7) Litigation.
The federal government has taken many other steps to prepare for the problem. For example, it recently authorized the printing of $50 billion in currency to add to the $150 billion in cash reserves for next year2 because of the anticipated run on banks. This is the first time the federal government has planned for a nationwide demand for extra cash.3
Notwithstanding the federal government’s efforts in this area, the forecasts do not look promising. The Department of Defense, Department of Labor, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are not expected to become compliant until 2001. The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Energy are not expected to achieve Y2K compliance until 2002. The Department of State is not expected to become compliant until 2027, and the Departments of Justice and Education are not forecasted to achieve Y2K compliance until 2030. Although the Departments of Transportation and Treasury are expected to be compliant in the years 1999 and 2000 respectively, both recently received a “D” grade by the Senate Subcommittee on Government Management and Information Technology.4
A survey conducted a year ago indicated that fewer than 50 percent of municipalities believed their computers had Y2K problems. Experts considered this “Pollyanna thinking.”5 If Y2K problems have in fact been underestimated by those in local government, the effects to the investments made by bond holders and those who rely on government-backed services could be disastrous.
The government’s degree of Y2K compliance is critical to the continued flow of goods and services within the chain of commerce. Mail, traffic, rail, subway, and utilities can each be adversely affected by operating systems, programming, or computer chips that are not Y2K compliant. Emergency services such as 911, fire, police and rescue service providers are also at risk. Although legislation has been proposed—such as Florida’s Commerce Protection Act of 1999, designed in part to encourage compliance among governmental agencies to preserve the health and welfare of the public—the laws enacted among the states to date principally protect government against incurring liability by extending sovereign immunity to cover Y2K-related mishaps.6
A Glimpse of the Future
Although not related to any Y2K malfunction, several events occurred recently which may provide a glimpse of what may occur when operating systems, programming, and computer chips are not Y2K compliant. In May of this year the Galaxy 4 satellite malfunctioned, rendering 32 million pagers useless for a day. Two months later the Hong Kong airport’s cargo and baggage handling computer system malfunctioned, causing the delivery of goods to be delayed, perishable cargo to spoil, and many passengers to miss their flights. The cost of the malfunction was estimated to be as high as $2 billion in damage over a nine-day period.7 Intel was one of the businesses that suffered a significant impact to its supply chain as a result of the Hong Kong malfunction, which in turn prompted a partial shutdown of two Intel plants.8 Similarly, in 1996 the computers controlling a New Zealand aluminum smelting plant shut down for several hours because programmers failed to consider leap years in the operation’s software. The mistake cost the company half a billion dollars. Several hours after the New Zealand plant shut down, a plant in Tasmania reported similar problems.9 Then, in mid-April of this year, AT&T’s Interspan data network ceased operating for almost 20 hours, causing teller machines and credit card processing devices to go off-line.10 These types of occurrences will be commonplace as we approach the Year 2000. Attorneys must be proactive in addressing the potential Y2K problems faced by their business clients so that they can avoid being ensnared in costly litigation or can be ensured of an avenue for potential redress in the event they suffer damages.
Insurance and Litigation
According to The Financial Post, insurers may be among the hardest hit by the costs associated with the Y2K bug.11 Some experts have indicated that certain insurers may become insolvent due to Y2K claims.12 The litigation defense costs and declaratory judgment costs associated with litigation over whether Y2K-related losses are covered under present policies is expected to rival the costs suffered by insurers and reinsurers for asbestos and environmental litigation combined.13 Recognizing the potential for large numbers of Y2K claims, regulators in 46 states, including Florida, are allowing insurers to exclude Y2K-related occurrences from their policies.14
Remarkably, despite the fact that Lloyds of London, Giga Information Group, Gartner Group, and others estimate that $1 trillion in damages and associated litigation costs will result from the Y2K bug,15 some still consider the Y2K problem insignificant. Sen. Bennett predicts that it will be the litigation costs rather than the costs to correct the bug that will bring the country into recession.16 Already there have been over 30 lawsuits filed regarding Y2K issues. The majority of these suits are class actions. As the litigation and business costs from Y2K-related problems increases, publicly traded companies may find that the turn of the millennium will be the single most significant event to impact their share prices.
One Y2K-related lawsuit was Produce Palace International v. Tec-America Corp.17 The case provides a glimpse of theories of recovery and damages being asserted as a result of Y2K system failures. In Produce Palace, a grocery store filed suit against the distributor and manufacturer of a computer point-of-sale system used to process purchases made by customers at the grocery store. The plaintiff asserted that the system failed to process credit cards with expiration dates on or after January 1, 2000, and said the distributor failed to fix the defects. The defect allegedly caused the system to intermittently shut down. The plaintiff claimed the system was down 100 of its first 500 days in operation. Among the theories of recovery, the plaintiff asserted claims for breach of express and implied warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of warranty of fitness for particular purpose, revocation of acceptance, breach of duty of good faith, negligent repair, misrepresentation, breach of contract, and violation of the state Consumer Protection Act. Among the damages associated with the intermittent shutdown, the plaintiff claimed loss of income and customer base, damage to customer good will, damages for employee down time, damages for the loss of use and value of the malfunctioning computer system, and repair costs.
The manufacturer defended on the basis of lack of privity between it and Produce Palace and claimed the difficulties were caused by the plaintiff’s improper operation of the system, the plaintiff’s credit card processing company and/or the distributor. The manufacturer also asserted that it developed a software upgrade to take care of the problems but that the plaintiff and the distributor either failed to install the upgrade or installed the upgrade improperly. The manufacturer brought a cross-claim against the distributor for breach of the distribution agreement and indemnification. The manufacturer then claimed that the distributor failed to properly install the system initially, failed to properly install the software update for the system, and claimed that the distributor introduced a computer virus into the system during repair.
The distributor alleged that the contract for purchase excluded all warranties and precluded claims for consequential damages. In addition, the distributor asserted that the problems associated with the system were caused by the plaintiff or other third parties.
Finally, the distributor brought a cross-claim against the manufacturer for any damages sustained as a result of the suit, claiming that the problems were design related. Before the case was tried, the parties settled and Produce Palace was paid $260,000. Experts believe this type of litigation will be prevalent come January 1, 2000.
To mitigate against the litigation costs associated with bringing and defending lawsuits like Produce Palace, it has been estimated U.S. companies will spend approximately $520 billion18 to become Y2K compliant. In fact, Citicorp, General Motors, Bank of America, GTE, Sprint, and AT&T combined have already budgeted or spent approximately $2.4 billion attacking the problem.19 Because of the substantial costs involved in becoming Y2K compliant, some businesses have decided to merge to share the expense, and small to midsize banks may be forced to seek mergers with larger rivals to avoid the threat of failing computer systems.20 Although some businesses are taking measures to become compliant, Gartner Group estimates that about 50 percent of all businesses will have some form of Y2K problem on January 1, 2000.21 Currently, a survey by the consulting firm of Cap Gemini America found that 80 percent of U.S. firms are behind schedule in becoming Y2K compliant.22
Stream of Commerce
Businesses should not be concerned only with their own Y2K compliance, because they do not operate in a vacuum. It has been reported that the typical business controls only about 25 percent of its critical resources, and that a disruption of a mere five percent of its supply can cripple a business, causing a chain reaction for those with whom it deals.23 This suggests that in today’s interdependent economy, businesses now more than ever are relying on one another to provide customers with goods and services. The health of the market depends on the consistent interaction between participants. Businesses in both the manufacturing and services industries that sell to ultimate consumers must themselves rely on the continual supply of a variety of goods
and services from vendors. Noncompliance by a supplying vendor creates a weak link in the chain of commerce that places the flow of goods and services in jeopardy. In addition to businesses directly, officers and directors of businesses who ignore the degree of Y2K compliance achieved by their vendors may in turn subject themselves to liability for breach of their fiduciary obligations if damages are caused by a Y2K supply disruption.24
Increasingly businesses will receive letters from their customers, vendors, service providers, and others with whom they interact that inquire about the business’ degree of Y2K compliance. For example, a customer may write:
We are contacting each of our vendors to help us assess the scope of our Year 2000 issues. We need information from you regarding our use of the following goods and services provided by your company:. . . .
The letter will also request that the vendor reply with an anticipated date on which it expects to become Y2K compliant. There are three principal purposes for such letters. First, the writer is attempting to ascertain whether to continue to engage in the business relationship. In particular, the writer may state the following:
We appreciate your service as a vendor and rely on your company in delivering our products and services to our customers. . . . If you have no plans to be Y2K compliant by September 1, 1999, please alert us now so that we may begin the search for replacement services.
If the response indicates an inadequate Y2K compliance program, the writer may use this information as an excuse to terminate the business relationship. Second, the writer is attempting to establish a basis for reliance. For example, the writer may state:
We expect that your company will become Y2K compliant, and will specifically rely on your statements to us of your Y2K compliance in assessing our own Y2K exposure.
If the response indicates that the business is Y2K compliant or that it will achieve compliance prior to the turn of the millennium, the writer may be able to recover resulting damages in the event the representation turns out to be untrue. Despite recent legislation, the language used to respond to these inquiries could still cause a business to incur liability that it might not otherwise incur. Third, the letters are sent on behalf of officers and directors in the hope of satisfying their fiduciary obligations to their organizations to assess potential adverse effects on the organization caused by the Y2K problem.
Commerce Protection Act
Because of the growing concern over the level of Y2K preparedness among government and the private sector, the Florida Commerce Protection Act of 1999 was drafted with one overriding objective: to encourage businesses and government agencies to become Y2K compliant in order to preserve the free flow of goods and services as we approach the new millennium. Each manufacturer, retailer, service provider, and governmental subdivision provides an integral link in the chain of commerce. Each must become Y2K compliant, or it will be less likely that we can preserve the free flow of goods and services necessary to limit the damages that our state and country will suffer come January 1, 2000.
The Commerce Protection Act of 1999 is designed to achieve these objectives and to curtail abuses by those who may attempt to exploit the problem. It provides exclusive remedies against those that fail to become Y2K compliant, provides incentives for businesses to become compliant, and encourages candor when reporting Y2K compliant status.
The bill assists officers and directors in avoiding personal liability for Y2K-related damages. It also encourages compliance by imposing requirements on entities who undertake to serve as solution providers to the Y2K problem and prohibits solution providers from overreaching when contracting with businesses. The bill exempts the exchange of certain information from falling under the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, and provides incentives for those to resolve their disputes outside the court system by encouraging binding arbitration and mediation. The Commerce Protection Act of 1999 also:
1) Provides for punitive damages under specified circumstances;
2) Expands the waiver of sovereign immunity for damages caused by the gross negligence of governmental agencies;
3) Excludes from compensatory damages, those damages that should have been avoided as a result of disclosures made;
4) Awards costs and attorneys’ fees under specified circumstances;
5) Prohibits solution providers from misusing or disclosing certain information provided to them;
6) Creates a lien in favor of lending institutions on proceeds received by a business as a result of its failure, or the failure of another, to become Y2K compliant; and
7) Limits the scope and use of class action lawsuits.
Because of the increasing number of questions regarding the status of Y2K compliance within government and industry, on October 19, 1998, the President signed into law the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Act25 which is designed to “promote the free disclosure and exchange of information related to year 2000 readiness” (see next article in this issue). The new law encourages the disclosure of Y2K compliance among members in industry by insulating from liability businesses making certain statements regarding Y2K compliance.
Senator Thompson (R. Tenn), one of the proponents of the law, concluded that the law “will promote the open sharing of information needed to solve the year 2000 problem” while at the same time it will prevent vendors that sell remediation products from taking advantage of unknowing customers, businesses, and other organizations “by making the protections of the bill unavailable to any seller. . . who does not inform in writing. . . that its legal rights under state law are reduced by this bill.”26
In large part, the law will make it more difficult for a person or organization to recover damages from another entity if the basis for recovery is a representation made regarding the Y2K readiness of the entity’s products and services. The law prohibits the introduction into evidence of Y2K readiness disclosures when it is offered to “prove the accuracy or truth of any year 2000 statement” made within the disclosure. For actions claiming that a year 2000 statement is misleading, the law raises the evidentiary bar to a “clear and convincing evidence” standard and requires that the claimant prove that the maker intended the statement to mislead or that the maker was grossly negligent when making the statement. For contract based actions, the law prevents a Y2K statement from becoming part of a warranty unless the statement is contained within the warranty or contract or the Y2K statement specifically provides that it is intended to alter or amend a particular warranty.
Although this legislation may encourage the free flow of information concerning Y2K readiness, for the most part it appears to benefit solution providers. Businesses hire a solution provider to assess the business’ level of compliance and to institute compliance measures accordingly. Under the law, solution providers who provide Y2K remediation products or services are protected from incurring liability under most theories of recovery when they represent to their clients that they have been made Y2K compliant. As a result, businesses relying on solution providers to ensure that they will be able to continue to conduct business without interruption through the new millennium are left with fewer remedies under which to recover in the event that the solution provider inadequately performs its service.
Although the new law may entice more solution providers to enter the marketplace, achieving compliance in time for the year 2000 will be difficult for many businesses due to present overriding market conditions. As one writer put it, there is a “gold rush” for solution providers.27 The problem is not simply that there are too few solution providers. The problem arises in that these solution providers will continue to become more and more in demand as the time available to businesses wishing to become compliant passes. With companies just now beginning to analyze the extent of the problem, there is a race to secure the services of solution providers. Because of these ever-increasing market pressures, the negotiating power is eroding for many businesses wishing to become compliant. Legislation must strike a balance between the competing concerns of ensuring that solution providers continue to enter the market place while at the same time ensuring that such solution providers will be held accountable in the event they perform their services inadequately.
Steps You Can Take
Despite proposed and new legislation and the urgency of the situation, many businesses, law firms, and local, state, and federal governments are not going to be compliant by the year 2000. Attorneys should assist their clients to perform detailed internal audits to ascertain whether they are protected from Y2K-related issues. The assessment can begin internally by empowering an MIS representative to review hardware and software, and to test the business’ programming. Attorneys should evaluate applicable hardware, software, and business equipment warranties to facilitate the update or replacement of affected information technology. If the business does not employ an in-house MIS person, it can secure the services of a Y2K solution provider to assess its information systems and provide a proposed remedy.
Businesses should begin determining which systems are critical to continued operation by examining the impact that an interruption or failure of a particular component will have on its ability to service its customers and clients on the first business day of the new millennium.
Time is of the essence. The Y2K bug that exists in information technology often requires the reprogramming of many strings of code and may also require the replacement of software and certain hardware items. Under some circumstances, office equipment such as fax machines and telephone systems will have to be upgraded or replaced. Because the true extent of a business’ Y2K noncompliance is not discovered until after testing begins, it is important to secure a solution provider and begin implementing a plan.
Insurance Audits
Businesses should have their insurance representative perform insurance audits and provide opinions as to the sufficiency of existing policies to cover losses for Y2K mishaps. Specifically, it is important to ensure that the business is protected from both first party and third party claims. Additionally, an insurance audit should be performed on a business’ D&O policy so that all directors and officers can assess their potential for personal liability. Finally, businesses should ask their insurance representative about new policies that may be available to protect against Y2K-related losses.
Vendors upon whom a business relies for products and services should be identified, irrespective of whether they directly interface with the business’ information system. A system does not need to interface with another’s noncompliant system for the business to be adversely affected by a vendor’s Y2K noncompliance. Noncompliance risk extends to vendors who may abruptly fail to supply a business with necessary materials, products, or services, thus hampering its ability to deliver to its own customers. The business’ attorney should prepare letters to the vendors eliciting the extent of the vendor’s Y2K compliance and document the business’ reliance on the vendor’s Y2K compliance response. It is important to know the date on which the vendor expects to become compliant. Because of the impact of recent federal legislation, specific agreements with vendors will need to be drafted to formally memorialize reliance on the vendor’s Y2K compliance. A business’ foreseeable damages should be set out in the agreement in the event an interruption in products, materials, or services occurs.
When negotiating contracts with solution providers, the business’ attorney should be aware of warranty disclaimers. Make sure that the solution provider agrees in writing to stand behind the products and services that it is providing to render the system Y2K compliant. Many solution providers are taking the position that their promises of Y2K compliance are not an express warranty upon which a business may rely. Often solution providers disclaim express warranties as well as implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose.
Through indemnification language, a business can protect itself from losses caused by its vendors by renegotiating and rewording their current vendor contracts. In contrast, a vendor may try to avoid liability resulting from its inability to supply its customer with goods and services by including a force majeure clause that covers Y2K-related events. For example one might use the following:
Acts of God or the public enemy; expropriation or confiscation of facilities; compliance with any order of any governmental authority; shortage or unavailability of materials, equipment, labor, or technical personnel; epidemics or breakdowns; riots, strikes, slowdowns and walkouts, blackouts or other industrial disturbances, whether direct or indirect; or any cause, whether or not of the same class or kind as those specifically named above, not within the reasonable control of the company, the cause of which includes, but is not limited to, any occurrence related in any way to Year 2000 computer issues in any way encompassing the failure of information technology to accurately process date/time data including, but not limited to, calculating, comparing, and sequencing from, into, and between the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and the years 1999 and 2000 and leap year calculations or the failure to accurately process date/time data if the other information technology exchanges date/time data with it.
In addition, a business can increase its chances of obtaining recovery for a Y2K-related failure by entering into a warranty agreement with vendors of computer hardware and software or chip embedded office equipment. Although such agreements can take on a variety of forms, the following language, which deals with computer interfacing equipment, may be helpful:
The (name) represents and warrants that its system and all interfaces to its system including, but not limited to, interfaces with other systems and data entry interface for this system, are Year 2000 compliant. Year 2000 compliant means information technology that accurately processes date/time data (including, but not limited to, calculating, comparing, and sequencing) from, into, and between the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and the years 1999 and 2000 and leap year calculations. Year 2000 compliant also means that the Year 2000 compliant information technology, when used in combination with other information technology, shall accurately process date/time data when other information technology exchanges date/time data with it. This warranty shall survive the expiration or termination of this contract.
Law Firm Concerns
Law firms need to remember that they are not immune to business interruptions due to Y2K problems. Attorneys are notorious for getting their own house in order last. The Year 2000 is not a deadline for which one may seek an extension. It is absolute, and so are the risks. Noncompliant systems in an attorney’s office may give rise to malpractice claims. Firms that rely on computer calendaring systems that are not Y2K compliant may miss filing deadlines, calendared hearings, trials, statute of limitations, etc. Most firms use computer networks, file servers, or desk top computers of some kind for word processing. Your firm should take the steps necessary to ensure that your works in progress are accessible on the first day of the new millennium. Finally, law firms should evaluate their delivery services, research services, billing programs, telephone systems, paging services, etc., for the extent of their Y2K compliance.
Overall, it is important that businesses and law firms make a concerted effort to assess their reliance on technical goods and services. They should place the most critical items at the top of the list for reaching Y2K compliance and work down when implementing a Y2K plan. The time spent instituting a Y2K assessment program and the money reallocated from the net profit column to invest in becoming Y2K compliant are initially difficult to embrace. After all, the investment in most instances will not further the business, but will only preserve its status quo. In the absence of these loss prevention measures law firms and businesses risk being unable to operate through the next two years. Most businesses have 10-, five-, and one-year projection plans. Y2K preparedness should be included in all immediate business plans.
The ramifications of Y2K will be felt worldwide. With 12 months remaining and the clock ticking, there is no time to waste. Attorneys must begin preparing for the worst. As Senator Bennett stated:
We must be Paul Revere. We must tell everyone that the British indeed are coming. Or, in this case, Y2K is coming. But we must not be Chicken Little and tell them that the sky is falling, and, therefore, they need do nothing but plow up their backyard to put in a propane tank, a bomb shelter, and a large supply of dried food that they will live in until the world finally comes back in three or four years.28
There is no extension of time for the new millennium. Attorneys, businesses, and government must work together in minimizing the damage that will result from the Y2K bug. q
1 144 Cong. Rec. S4607-01 (1998).
2 Beth Belton, A Stash of Cash for Y2K, USA Today, Aug. 20, 1998.
3 Id.
4 Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, Freedom Works (visited Oct. 3, 1998)
5 Ellen Perlman, Y2K Bugs the Muni Bond Business, Governing, Sept. 1998, at 49.
6 See e.g. 1998 Fla. Laws ch. 98-331; Ga. Code Ann. § 36-60-20 (1998); Ga. Code Ann. §50-21-24 (1998).
7 Bloomberg News Report, Err-port hints at 2000 bug, republished, Tampa Tribune, July 14, 1998.
8 Reuters, Hong Kong fiasco for Intel Cargo, republished, CNET News.Com., July 27, 1998.
9 Christopher Ott, Tips for avoiding Y2K nightmares, The Denver Business Journal, August 10, 1998.
10 Louise Kehoe, Caught with its systems down, Financial Times, Apr. 12, 1998.
11 Insurers on the Edge, The Financial Post, May 16, 1998.
12 Ara C. Trembly, Y2K Could Drive Insurers Out of Business, National Underwriter Life & Health-Financial Services Edition 29, June 1, 1998.
13 Susanne Sclafane, Y2K Coverage Debate Could Rival A&E, National Underwriter Property & Casualty-Risk & Benefits Management, Jan. 26, 1998.
14 Associated Press, Insurers May Exclude Year 2000 Woes, republished, St. Petersburg Times, Aug. 10, 1998.
15 Kevin Maney, Lawyers circle over 2000 time bomb, USA Today, Aug. 3, 1998.
16 Id.
17 See Produce Palace International v. Tec-America Corp. This lawsuit was filed on June 12, 1997, in Michigan. It settled in September 1998.
18 Tom Costello, Europe Sits on ‘Y2K’ time bomb, CNBC (Aug. 10, 1998)
19 See, e.g., Sprint wrestles Y2K bug, CNNfn (Aug. 10, 1998)
20 Reuters, Banks may merge to beat bug, CNETNews.com (visited Aug. 21, 1998)
21 See supra note 12; see also supra note 13.
22 Associated Press, Preparing for the high-tech ‘big one,’ USA Today, Aug. 18, 1998.
23 Tony C. Clawson and William A. Zucker, Squashing The Millennium Bug, Boston Globe, Sept. 1, 1998.
24 David T. Shapiro, Litigating the Year 2000, The Washington times, July 2, 1998.
25 Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act, Pub. L. No. 105-217, 112 Stt. 2386 (1998).
26 144 Cong. Rec. S11062-02, S11065 (1998) (statement of Sen. Thompson).
27 David E. Kalish and Patricia Lamiell, Year 2000 sparks digital gold rush, The Record Online (Aug. 24, 1998)
28 Senator Robert Bennett, a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the subject of the Y2K Crises: A Global Ticking Time Bomb?, (June 2, 1998).
John Grant is a Bar member and senior ranking State Senator of Florida for District 13.
Steven G. Burton is managing shareholder of Burton & Murphy, a business law firm based in Tampa.
