Past Cases

Not all results are provided, the results are not necessarily representative of results obtained by the lawyer, and a prospective client's individual facts and circumstances may differ from the matter in which the results are provided.


Marquis v. U.S. Sugar Corporation, et al., 652 F.Supp. 598 (S.D. Fla. 1987) (represented claims of U.S. workers in antitrust action against sugar companies).

Harvey v. NASCAR, 84 - 95 Reed (M.D. Fla.) (represented race car driver in antitrust action against racing association).

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Jonas v. Stack, 758 F.2d 567 (11th Cir. 1985) (held that prevailing attorney was entitled to reimbursement for attorneys’ fees expended in litigating fee application).

Dunbar v. City of Belle Glade, Case No. 79 8341 Civ Hastings (S.D. Fla.) (testified as plaintiffs’ expert regarding reasonableness of fee request).

Calaway v. South Florida Water Management District, Case No. 85-1173, 15th Judicial Circuit, State of Florida (represented successful attorney in fee application ).

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (represented successful attorneys in fee litigation).

Hernandez v. Medows, Case No. 02-20964, 2005 WL 8156502 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 20005) (awarding $869,851 in fees and costs in ADA action).

LaMarca v. Turner, 995 F.2d 1526 (11th Cir.1993) (fees expert after remand in prisoners’ rights case where inmates were threatened with physical violence and assaulted by other inmates at Glades Correctional Institution because they refused to participate in brutal same-sex rapes, or pay protection to be left alone).

Mendelson et al. v. City of St. Cloud, et al., Case No. 87-205-Orl-18 (M.D. Fla.) (represented successful attorneys in fee application).

Stratton v. Sarasota Cnty., 983 So. 2d 51, 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (Noscitur a sociis is Latin for “a word is known by the company it keeps.” Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, when general and specific words are capable of having analogous meanings, the meaning of general words is restricted to the meaning of the more specific words. Payroll expenses for code enforcement employees was a “cost of demolition and removal” under the county's demolition ordinance).

Commercial Litigation

Rayfield Aviation, LLC v. Lyon Aviation, Inc., 2012 WL 3095332 (M.D. N.C. July 20, 2012)(contract management service agreements with third-parties held relevant and discoverable given the potential ambiguity of the contract terms at issue; compelling defendant to provide documentation “which relate to the parties' dispute under the [a]greement”; a plaintiff’s motive in bringing suit is not relevant to the subject matter of the litigation and is not a matter for discovery).

Rayfield Inv. Co. v. Kreps, 35 So.3d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (notwithstanding creditor’s knowledge that Palm Beach gallery had some consignments in its inventory, creditor who perfected security interest had a superior interest in rare painting over that of consignor).

Constitutional Rights

American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. The Florida Bar, 744 F. Supp. 1094 (N.D. Fla. 1990) (declared unconstitutional application of Canon 7(B) of the Code of Judicial Conduct to campaign speech).

American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. The Florida Bar, 999 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir. 1993) (State bar was proper defendant in challenging the constitutionality of judicial code where candidate was lawyer who fell within Bar’s disciplinary jurisdiction when suit was filed; controversy remained live even after bar and JQC stated in court papers that code could not constitutionally be applied to candidate’s proposed campaign speech).

American Federation of State, County and Mun. Employees (AFSCME) Council 79 v. Scott, 277 F.R.D. 474 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (Governor’s subpoenas on nonparty nonprofit advocacy organization serving as counsel for union quashed).

Baptiste, et al. v. City of West Palm Beach, et al., Case No. 86-8335-Civ-Davis (S.D. Fla.) (class action challenging pattern of Fourth Amendment violations against Haitians by police department; consent decree).

Blackmun v. Wille, 980 F.2d 691 (11th Cir.1993)(represented inmate class in jail conditions case in Palm Beach County; obtained sweeping injunctive relief).

Bland v. Norvell, Case No. 80-8251-Civ-Paine (S.D. Fla.) (represented inmate class in jail conditions case in St. Lucie County; obtained sweeping relief by partial consent decree and injunction).

Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee, Fla., 709 F.Supp.2d 1244 (N. D. Fla. 2010) (Florida statute proscribing the unauthorized publication of the home address or telephone number of any law enforcement officer, with malice and intent to intimidate on the part of the speaker, was not narrowly tailored to serve the state interest of protecting police officers from harm or death, and thus was facially invalid under the First Amendment).

Bruce v. Beary, 498 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir.2007) (fact issues existed as to whether warrantless administrative inspection of shop was reasonable; fact issues existed as to reasonableness of officers’ seizure of, and refusal to return, owner’s property; fact issues existed as to whether sheriff had policy of inadequately training officers regarding execution of administrative inspections; single instance of withholding property seized from auto body repair shop, after state court ordered that such property be returned to shop owner, could subject county sheriff, as policymaker, to liability for constitutional violation).

Bryant v. Wainwright, 686 F.2d 1373 (11th Cir. 1982) (represented African American woman in federal habeas corpus challenge alleging racial and sexual discrimination in Florida grand jury selection process).

City of Delray Beach v. Barfield, 579 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (public records case).

Chandler v. Baird, 926 F.2d 1057 (11th Cir.1991) (evidence created genuine issue of material fact whether conditions of administrative confinement, principally with regard to cell temperature and provision of hygiene items, violated the Eighth Amendment, precluding summary judgment).

Complete Angler, LLC v. City of Clearwater Fla., 607 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1335-36 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (finding sign ordinance content based because “in concluding that the [sign was] subject to the [ordinance], defendant necessarily examined [its] content and determined that it was not art work, a holiday decoration, or any other sign exempted under the Code”; “Waiving the bond requirement is particularly appropriate where a plaintiff alleges the infringement of a fundamental constitutional right.”).

Cooper v. Dillon, 403 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (Police chief had final policymaking authority for City of Key West in law enforcement matters, and his decision to enforce Florida statute prohibiting disclosure of nonpublic information by participant in internal investigation of law enforcement officer against newspaper publisher was adoption of “policy” that caused deprivation of publisher’s First Amendment rights sufficient to render municipality liable under § 1983).

Cronin v. Holt, Case No. 81-8309-civ-Spelman (S.D. Fla.) (represented inmate class in jail conditions case in Martin County; obtained sweeping relief by consent decree).

Davis v. City of Apopka, 734 Fed.Appx. 616 (11th Cir. 2018) (police chief has final policymaking authority for Monell purposes; police chief needed actual probable cause to arrest Davis, rather than mere arguable probable cause; vacated and remanded to district court to determine how Florida’s Stand Your Ground law impacted probable cause inquiry).

DeWeese v. Town of Palm Beach, 812 F.2d 1365 (11th Cir. 1987) (declared Town of Palm Beach shirtless jogging statute unconstitutional).

Department of Revenue v. Kuhnlein, 646 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1994) (Because Florida courts are tribunals of plenary jurisdiction, federal standing requirements do not apply to Florida courts; neither the sovereign immunity nor common law defenses apply to claims brought under either the state or federal constitutions).

Doe v. Florida Supreme Court and The Florida Bar, 734 F. Supp. 981 (S.D. Fla. 1990) (declared unconstitutional a regulation requiring confidentiality of complaints against lawyers to the Florida Bar).

Doe v. Gonzalez, 723 F. Supp. 690 (S.D. Fla. 1988) (declared unconstitutional a Florida statute requiring confidentiality of complaints to Florida Ethics Commission).

Doe v. State of Fla. Judicial Qualifications Comm’n., 748 F. Supp. 1520 (S.D. Fla. 1990) (declared unconstitutional a Florida constitutional prohibition on disclosure of fact that complaint had been filed with Judicial Qualifications Commission).

Esquivel v. Village of McCullom Lake, 633 F. Supp. 1199 (N.D. Ill. 1986) (trial counsel for family whose house was wrongfully demolished for health code violations without due process of law).

Florida Consumers Federation v. City of Plantation and City of Tamarac, No. 83-6141-civ-Eaton (S.D. Fla.) (declared municipal canvassing ordinances unconstitutional).

Ford v. City of Boynton Beach, 323 So. 3d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (when law enforcement is working in public they do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; a citizen is allowed to videotape an officer who is performing his lawful duties while out in public without violating a criminal statute).

Fouts v. Harris, 88 F.Supp.2d 1351 (S.D. Fla. 1999), aff'd sub nom. Chandler v. Harris, 529 U.S. 1084 (2000) (Shaw claims seeking injunctive relief were laches-barred).

Frazier v. Alexandre, et al., 434 F.Supp.2d 1350 (S. D. Fla. 2006) aff’d in part, reversed in part sub nom Frazier v. Winn, 535 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir.2008) ( Florida statute mandating parental permission for students to refuse to recite pledge declared unconstitutional).

Fulani v. Krivanek, 973 F.2d 1579 (11th Cir. 1992) (declared unconstitutional a Florida statute allowing independent but not minor party candidates from obtaining waiver of signature verification fees upon showing of indigency).

Hickox v. Tyre, Case No. 87-8327-Civ-Zloch (S.D. Fla.) (declared unconstitutional §112.533, Fla. Stat., that criminalized dissemination of truthful information concerning complaints against law enforcement officers).

Jakin v. City of Sebring, Case No. 82-8224-Civ-Marcus (represented former inmate challenging constitutionality of jail strip search policy).

Johnson v. Bush, 214 F.Supp.2d 1333 (S.D. Fla. 2002), aff’d in part, rev’d in part and remanded, 353 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2003); rehearing en banc granted, opinion vacated, 377 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2004) (co-counsel in class action challenging Florida’s felon disenfranchisement law; challenge ultimately rejected).

Maale v. Kirchgessner, No. 08–80131–Civ, 2012 WL 2254083, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. May 29, 2012) (overruling Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to impose an attorney fee award as a sanction against the plaintiff in favor of the defendant because the defendant had previously been awarded attorneys’ fees and such a sanction would constitute a double recovery).

Mech v. Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach County., 806 F.3d 1070 (11th Cir.2015) (private advertising banners printed in school colors, subject to school design requirements, and displayed on school fences were government speech because “observers reasonably believe the government has endorsed the message.”).

Kerr, et al. v. City of West Palm Beach, 875 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1989) (reinstated jury verdict finding city encouraged atmosphere of lawlessness and was grossly negligent in supervision of police canine unit).

Naturist Society, Inc. v. Fillyaw, 958 F.2d 1515 (11th Cir. 1992) (adoption of amended regulations did not render controversy moot; state beach was a public forum).

Planned Parenthood of Southwest & Central Florida v. Philip, 194 F.Supp.3d 1213 (N.D. Fla. 2016) (applying the unconstitutional conditions doctrine to a statute that prohibits abortion providers from receiving state funds for services unrelated to abortion).

Reinish v. Clark, 765 So.2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), rev. denied, 790 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 993 (2001) (Florida’s constitutional and statutory homestead tax exemption provisions did not constitute a per se violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause).

Spillias v. City of West Palm Beach, Case No. 82-8319-Civ-Gonzalez (S.D. Fla.) (represented county commissioner candidate in successful First Amendment challenge to constitutionality of municipal sign ordinance).

Strickland v. Sheppard, Case No. 83-8428-Civ-Hoeveler (S.D. Fla.) (represented inmate class in jail conditions case in Highlands County; obtained sweeping relief by partial consent decree and injunction).

Sunrise Detox V, LLC v. City of White Plains, 769 F.3d 118, 123 (2d Cir. 2014)(“a plaintiff alleging discrimination in the context of a land use dispute is subject to the final-decision requirement unless he can show that he suffered some injury independent of the challenged land-use decision.”).

Sydney v. Pingree, 564 F.Supp. 412 (S.D. Fla. 1982) (declared part of Chapter 393, Florida Statutes, unconstitutional as violating parents’ constitutional right to name children).

Towbin v. Antonacci, 885 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (granting injunction against a statute limiting direct campaign contributions by minors).

United Farm Workers of America, AFL CIO v. Quincy Corp., 681 So.2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (Ex parte temporary injunction, prohibiting farm workers’ union from taking certain actions in support of union organizing efforts, violated rule governing temporary injunctions; nothing in record indicated that notice was given to union, and injunction did not define injury, state findings as to why injury might be irreparable, or give reasons why injunction was granted without notice).

Vogt v. School Board, Case No. 81-8217-Civ-Gonzalez (S.D. Fla.) (First Amendment case establishing right of access for draft counselors to public schools).

Wallace v. Town of Palm Beach, 624 F. Supp. 864 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (declared Town of Palm Beach worker identification law unconstitutional).

Warner v. City of Boca Raton, 267 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir.2001) (Class action free exercise of religion claim challenging City’s prohibition on vertical grave decorations; issues of first impression relating to application of Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to owners’ claims certified to Florida Supreme Court; questions answered adverse to class, 887 So.2d 1023(Fla.2004)).

Whiting v. Traylor, 85 F.3d 581 (11th Cir.1996) (§ 1983 claim for malicious prosecution in violation of Fourth Amendment rights exists, at least insofar as it is based on some actual, unlawful, forcible restraint of plaintiff’s person, and boat owner stated such claim).

Wodka v. Jamason, Case No. 80-8375-Civ-Hastings (S.D. Fla.) (represented inmate class in jail conditions case in City of West Palm Beach; jail closed by consent decree).

Wright v. Sheppard, 919 F.2d 665, 669 (11th Cir.1990) (Remand necessary in civil rights action arising out of alleged battery during deputy sheriff’s attempt to collect private debt where trial court did not address various types of compensable damages that debtor claimed to have suffered, such as physical injuries other than loss of teeth, nonphysical injuries such as humiliation, emotional distress and suffering, continued pain in debtor’s mouth, and loss of use and physical pain caused by arm injury; also “This case cries out for punitive damages as punishment. The wrongs were especially offensive in their nature.”).

Disability Rights

Alejandro v. Palm Beach State College, 843 F.Supp.2d 1263 (S.D.Fla.2011) (relying on Title II regulation’s service animal provision to preliminarily enjoin college from preventing plaintiff’s access to all areas of campus with her service animal)

Concerned Parents v. City of West Palm Beach, 846 F. Supp. 986 (S.D. Fla. 1994) (budget cuts which resulted in a disproportionate reduction in recreational services for people with disabilities violated ADA).

CRC Health Grp., Inc. v. Town of Warren, No. 2:11-cv-196-DBH, 2014 WL 2444435 (D. Me. Apr. 1, 2014) (“A municipality must demonstrate an objectively legitimate basis for discrimination” and that “[g]eneralized perceptions about disabilities and unfounded speculations about threats to safety are specifically rejected as grounds to justify exclusion.”; ‘[a] treatment provider such as [a methadone clinic] has standing to sue on its own behalf when “denied a zoning permit because it cares for and/or associates with individuals who have disabilities.”).

Dayton Veterans Residences Ltd. P'ship v. Dayton Metro. Hous. Auth, No. 3:16-cv-466, 2017 WL 3605381 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 22, 2017) (a private developer of affordable housing for disabled veterans established a cognizable FHA discrimination claim against a public housing agency which the developer requested to seek Department of Veterans Affairs funding for the developer’s project to house homeless vets, but which the public housing agency instead sought for itself).

Dayton Veterans Residences Ltd. P'ship v. Dayton Metro. Hous. Auth, No. 3:16-cv-466, 2019 WL 5956543 (S.D. Ohio November 12, 2019) (Even if no specific oral or written request for a “reasonable accommodation” was made prior to September 2, 2016, a reasonable jury could find that the December of 2015, communications between plaintiff and defendant were sufficient to put defendant on notice of the need for a reasonable accommodation under the FHA or the ADA).

Dayton Veterans Residences Ltd. P'ship v. Dayton Metro. Hous. Auth., No. 21-3090, 2021 WL 5411220, at *9 (6th Cir. Nov. 19, 2021) ("As then-Judge Gorsuch noted, 'under the FHA it is sometimes necessary to dispense with formal equality of treatment in order to advance a more substantial equality of opportunity.' ... a jury could conclude that it was necessary for GDPM to amend its Administrative Plan to advance such equality of opportunity for disabled veterans. A reasonable jury could find that amending the plan would have afforded disabled veterans an opportunity to live near the VA campus and placed them on equal footing with non-disabled persons living in the Dayton community.").

Doe v. Judicial Nominating Commission, 906 F. Supp. 1534 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (questions concerning physical and mental health on applications for judicial appointments violated ADA).

Doe v. Stincer, 175 F.3d 879, 884 (11th Cir. 1998) (nothing in the PAMII Act requires a protection and advocacy organization to name a specific individual in bringing suit to redress violations of the rights of individuals with mental illnesses; rather, “[t]he text of PAMII grants standing to protection and advocacy systems to pursue legal remedies to ‘ensure protection of individuals with mental illness.’”)

Ellen S. v. Florida Board of Bar Examiners, 859 F. Supp. 1489 (S.D. Fla. 1994) (questions on bar application and follow-up inquiries regarding treatment for mental illness violated ADA).

Jeffrey O. v. City of Boca Raton, 511 F.Supp.2d 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (provision of city code, which capped the number of unrelated individuals who could live together in residential zones at three, violated Fair Housing Act because it did not establish a reasonable accommodation procedure; another provision of city code, which prohibited sober homes in residential neighborhoods by defining them as substance abuse treatment facilities also violated Fair Housing Act).

Johnson v. Florida, 348 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2003)(class action challenging quality of treatment and placement at state mental hospital; obtained sweeping relief by partial consent decree requiring placements of 375 patients in community and closure of over 450 hospital beds; forced closure of hospital; state not entitled to termination of consent decree; consent decree dissolved in 2010 upon compliance after nearly 25 years of litigation).

Kimberly Regenesis, LLC v. Lee County, Case No.: 2:19-cv-538-FtM-38NPM, 2020 WL 758099 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2020) (“[T]he administrative proceedings and this case d[id] not involve the same causes of action and the claims in this case and requests for relief were not addressed by the state court’s decision”; the plaintiff “raise[d] claims and request[ed] relief that could not have been raised in the earlier proceedings and could not have been adjudicated by the state court,” and therefore the county wasn’t entitled to dismissal on these grounds.)

International Human Rights

Arce, et al. v. Garcia and Vides-Casanova, 434 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir.2006) (co-lead counsel in Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) and Alien Tort Statute (ATS) case for plaintiffs who obtained $54.6 million jury verdict against former Salvadoran Ministers of Defense; featured in National Law Journal Top 100 Verdicts, 2002; district court did not abuse its discretion by equitable tolling of statute of limitations on Salvadoran refugees’ claims under TVPA and ATCA, which alleged that two Salvadoran military officials were responsible for torture of refugees by soldiers in El Salvador during the course of a campaign of human rights violations, until the end of the civil war in El Salvador, even though officials left El Salvador to reside in the United States three years earlier; prior to end of civil war, refugees legitimately feared reprisals from Salvadoran military, as military regime remained in power until end of civil war).

In re Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc. Alien Tort Statute and S’holder Derivative Litig., 792 F.Supp.2d 1301, 1312 (S.D.Fla.2011) (co- counsel in Alien Tort Statute (ATS) case for torture and extrajudicial killing of plaintiffs and family members by Colombian paramilitary; case brought after Chiquita pled guilty to U.S. government charges of “prolonged, steady, and substantial support” to Colombian paramilitary organization).

Carrizosa v. Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc., 47 F.4th 1278 (11th Cir. 2022) ( Colombian indictment was admissible under business records and public records exceptions to hearsay rule; letters from Colombian officials from Justice and Peace program were not untrustworthy; decedent's children made sufficient efforts to obtain declarant's testimony, as necessary for declarant to be unavailable; opinion of expert on armed conflict in Colombia was based on reliable information; rule governing other-crimes evidence did not preclude admission of organization's modus operandi for murders; “[d]istrict courts abuse their discretion when they deny a party a chance to respond to new arguments or facts raised for the first time in a reply brief in support of a motion for summary judgment and subsequently enter judgment on the basis of those new arguments or facts”; and triable issues existed as to whether organization was responsible for murder of certain victims).


Okeelanta Corporation, et al. v. Bygrave, 660 So.2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (co-counsel in class action on behalf of more than 25,000 foreign sugarcane cutters for breach of contract; obtained $51,000,000 judgment for class; reversed and remanded for trial).

Land Use

Boca Development Associates, Ltd. v. Palm Beach County, et al., Case No. 85-6792-Civ-Scott (S.D. Fla.) (represented developer in land use case alleging denial of due process).

Southern Entertainment v. City of Boynton Beach, Case No. 89-8210- Civ-Scott (S.D. Fla.) (defended constitutionality of zoning law for municipality).

Educational Development Center, Inc. v. City of West Palm Beach Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 541 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1989) (established extent of district court of appeal’s certiorari review of circuit court’s order overturning decisions of administrative agencies).


Dayton Veterans Residences Ltd. P'ship v. Dayton Metro. Hous. Auth., No. 3:16-cv-466, 2018 WL 2948021, at *8 (S.D. Ohio June 13, 2018) (“It is the attorney’s job to make an objection and then stop talking. If the deponent does not know how to answer a question, he or she may state as much, but it is not appropriate for his or her attorney to push him or her in that direction.” Indeed, all counsel for the deponent may “do is state a concise, nonargumentative, and nonsuggestive objection on the record and instruct [the] witness not to answer in the limited circumstances laid out in Rule 30(c)(2)”; admonishing defense counsel from inserting “if you can” or “if you know” and other suggestive comments in his objections, noting that repeatedly interrupting questioning with such comments “can plausibly be seen as coaching the witness.”) ((internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Truman v. Brown, 434 F.Supp.3d 100 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (father's failure to pay mother $500,000 under parties' purported agreement was not extreme and outrageous conduct, and thus did not constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) under New York laws; New York Statute of Frauds applied to purported agreement between parties; father's accusation to mother, through counsel, that parties' agreement was extortionate was not extreme and outrageous conduct, and thus did not constitute IIED under New York law).

Privacy Rights

Rios v. Direct Mail Express, Inc., 435 F.Supp.2d 1199 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (motorists stated a claim that marketer knowingly obtained records in violation of Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act (DPPA); marketer was not entitled to defense of good faith reliance on state motor vehicles department to comply with law; statute did not require allegation that marketer knowingly violated DPPA; DPPA preempted state constitutional provision and state statute governing disclosure of motor vehicle records; and DPPA did not violate Tenth Amendment).

Amicus Curi

In Re: The Petition of Kerry Mark Hooper to Change Name, 436 So.2d 401 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1983) (wrote amicus brief for Florida Association of Woman Lawyers).

City of Pompano Beach v. Capalbo, 455 So.2d 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), cert. denied, 461 So.2d 113 (Fla. 1985); cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1000 (1985) (wrote amicus brief for American Civil Liberties Union of Florida).

Long v. State of Florida, 570 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1990) (wrote amicus brief for American Civil Liberties Union of Florida).

Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624 (1990) (on amicus brief for American Civil Liberties Union of Florida).

State v. Davis, 516 So.2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (wrote amicus brief for Florida Public Defender’s Association).

Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) (on amicus brief for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida).

Palm Beach County v. Hudspeth, 540 So.2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (wrote amicus brief for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida)

Special Master

Givens v. Hamlet Estates, Ltd., Case No. 90-1908-Civ-Nesbit (S.D. Fla. 1990) (Appointed special master to determine damages of individual class members in $3.4 million settlement of class action housing discrimination lawsuit).


Former outside counsel to cities of Boynton Beach, Riviera Beach, and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida

Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida (1987‑1992)