If I were in your shoes I’d be asking me to prove it. Board certification means you can trust that I’m an expert.
But you can see for yourself, too. Below you can find briefs from some of the cases I was able to secure a favorable result for the client.
Every case is different. I cannot guarantee a favorable result for you, especially in a criminal appeal or habeas corpus action. But I’ll do everything I can to add you to the list below.
There is a special section on assignment of benefits (AOB) cases, a great volume of which I did as of counsel for Adkins award-winning Susan Fox of Fox and Loquasto.
Criminal cases and publications in law journals are below the section on civil cases.
REPRESENTATIVE CIVIL CASES
New! A law firm advised a two-member faction of a five-member board that they could replace the other three directors. The minority faction did so, and hired the law firm, based on the law firm’s own advice: that the minority was actually the majority.
The circuit courts declared otherwise twice, including at a trial de novo of a DBPR ALJ decision, and there was no appeal. The law firm withdrew and assigned its alleged fee debt to the firm’s own collections corporation. Suing for the law firm’s fees, the corporation lost on actual authority to hire the law firm, but won on apparent authority at a bench trial. Moderately outrageous.
I also have experience in matters of condominium governance in Florida.
New! In Gershenbaum v. Wind Condominium Association, Inc., I represented the plaintiff in a condominium dispute in the Third DCA involving a flood-related property damage claim under the Florida Condominium Act.
Initial Brief Reply Brief Opinion
New! In Mumford-Porter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., I represented Wells Fargo Bank in the Fourth DCA, succesfully defending a favorable judgment against the homeowner’s appeal.
New! In Rice, I obtained a favorable result for the client in the Third DCA.
New! In Edison Insurance Company v. Fairweather, I successfully defended a trial court win against the insurer’s appeal in the Fourth DCA.
New! In Hall v. Chubb European Group SE, I represent the appellant in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in a property insurance dispute arising from the Middle District of Florida.
New! In Concepcion and Cabrera v. Nisbet Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a McDonalds, I represented the appellants in the Sixth DCA.
New! While I was working at Kramer Green Zuckerman Greene and Buchsbaum, I defended an appeal of a big win on the esoteric topic of copyright preemption.
New! Again with Kramer Green, I successfully defended an appeal of a $3.6 million verdict against an insurer who refused to pay one cent after Hurricane Irma struck a 32-story luxury condominium on Brickell Key in Miami.
Cross-Appellant’s Brief Cross-Appellant’s Reply (us) Opinion
New! The latest issue in property insurance is whether the changes in Chapter 2021-77 will be applied retroactively.
State Farm argued that, when it sent its appraiser into the home of an insured, the appraiser had a right to privacy against the homeowner recording the inspection. In my response, I argued the fourth amendment. The Third DCA agreed.
When a construction company tried to double-dip by both foreclosing on the improved property and then recovering the full value of its services from the general contractor, I protected the contractor and its attorney in the 5th DCA. Opinion is here.
I had the privilege to take on Curt Allen in Klugerman v. State Farm, where Mr. Allen filed a motion to disqualify the judge the day before the trial. It took the Third DCA less than four hours to deny his petition for prohibition after I filed the response. The appendix to the response, which contains the motions filed below, can be accessed by clicking here.
People’s Trust Insurance Company has tried to limit its property coverage to $2000 through a phantom agreement with its captive restoration company, Rapid Response Team. Briefs have been filed in county-to-circuit cases in Miami-Dade county and in Broward county.
This case against Universal Insurance Company is an example of the arguments insurance companies are willing to make. Attorneys will recognize that the “accord and satisfaction” arguments are taken to a new level in this case. If you aren’t familiar with the term, the short version is, “Surprise! You settled your claim with us when you cashed the check for an amount we told you we owed.” Initial Brief Answer Brief Reply Brief SEPTEMBER 24 UPDATE: WIN! CLICK HERE FOR OPINION
I was appointed by the 11th Circuit to represent Mr. Ealy, a blind Florida inmate, in his law suit against the private prison that left him to fall repeatedly. I won for him. INITIAL BRIEF REPLY BRIEF
I have also had to defend wins at trial from appeals by insurance companies.
REPRESENTATIVE CRIMINAL CASES
New! In United States v. Walker, I represented the appellant in the Eleventh Circuit in a federal criminal appeal from the Middle District of Florida.
New! I also represented Mrs. Walker in a related civil forfeiture action, opposing the government’s motion for summary judgment where the ATF failed to provide actual notice of administrative forfeiture while she was incarcerated.
Opposition to Summary Judgment
New! CJA panel appointment in the Sixth Circuit.
New! CJA panel appointment in the Sixth Circuit (second).
Initial Brief in Sexual Battery case - the state conceded error on appeal in this case, and the client walked free, with no possibility of retrial. He is one of about twenty defendants in Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal to enjoy that outcome on appeal in 2016. A more typical successful outcome is a new trial.
In Jones v. United States, I was able to help the defendant bring an entirely new set of claims on his second or successive 2255. OPENING BRIEF REPLY BRIEF
Motion for certificate of appealability - this is a request for permission to appeal, and based primarily on the lower court filing for Mr. Lenz.
FLORIDA ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFITS ("AOB") CASES
Insurance companies in Florida are currently executing a full court press against assignments of benefits. I am proud to have handed them a long series of defeats under the guidance of Susan Fox, a titan of Florida appellate practice.
In Restoration 1 a/a/o Alex Tchekmeian vs. ASI Preferred Insurance Corporation, I successfully argued that ASI included illegal clauses in its insurance policy, and that Mr. Tchekmeian had the right to use his insurance benefits to pay for emergency repairs to his home. As counsel for the appellant (Restoration 1, who lost below), I was responsible for the initial brief and reply brief. I had the honor of having former Florida Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Bell on the other side. Click for his answer brief. And to be fair - on this issue Mr. Bell won a published opinion accepting his arguments in the 4th DCA, and a per curiam affirmance in the 2d DCA.
I also represented the Florida Justice Association as amicus curiae in Security First Insurance Company v. Florida Office of Insurance Regulation. It was great to help give Security First a big loss.
AllStar Animal Removal was a nice win. Insurance companies are really trying to make their customers jump a lot of hoops. INITIAL BRIEF REPLY BRIEF
Similarly, in Restoration 1 v. State Farm, the insurance company made a just plain bizarre argument that the homeowner wanted to do an AOB that was not really an AOB. They lost. INITIAL BRIEF
Certified Priority, Inc. v. State Farm - interlocutory appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal of an order compelling appraisal. This was a win too.
In Nicon Construction, Inc. v. Homeowners Choice Property and Casualty Insurance Company, I kept Homeowners Choice from keeping money that belonged to the asbestos remediator. INITIAL BRIEF OPINION
KP Enterprises Inc. v. Frontline Homeowners Insurance - initial brief and reply brief of an appeal wherein the insurance company paid the wrong party. This was a win, and the opinion is here.
In United Reconstruction Group v. Citizens, the insurance company is arguing that it's not responsible for theft of benefits when it paid the wrong person, who cashed the check. INITIAL BRIEF REPLY BRIEF
“Most legal writing is bad writing, so to encounter a superbly written brief makes the judge nearly overflow with gratitude. ”
“Overall, the judges’ relative emphasis on written argument contrasts with surveys of practicing lawyers, who see legal writing to be of minor importance. ”
“In my twelve years on the bench, I have seen much written work by lawyers that is quite appalling. Many lawyers appear not to understand even the most elementary matters pertaining to style of presentation in legal writing, i.e., things that serve to facilitate communications between lawyers and clients, lawyers and opposing counsel, and lawyers and governmental decisionmakers or policymakers.
”
“I used to say that, as Solicitor General, I made three arguments of every case. First came the one that I planned—as I thought, logical, coherent, complete. Second was the one actually presented—interrupted, incoherent, disjointed, disappointing. The third was the utterly devastating argument that I thought of after going to bed that night.”
“If you see someone who has written a sloppy brief, I’m inclined to think that person is a sloppy thinker. It is rare that a person thinks clearly, precisely, carefully, and does not write that way. And contrariwise, it’s rare that someone who is careful and precise in his thought is sloppy in his writing. So it hurts you … to have ungrammatical, sloppy briefs.”
“Lawyers somehow can’t give up the extra space, so they fill the brief unnecessarily, not realizing that eye-fatigue and even annoyance will be the response they get for writing an overlong brief.”
“Most cases present only one, two, or three significant questions . . . . Usually, . . . if you cannot win on a few major points, the others are not likely to help, and to attempt to deal with a great many in the limited number of pages allowed for briefs will mean that none may receive adequate attention. The effect of adding weak arguments will be to dilute the force of the stronger ones.”
“As Professor Kingsfield of The Paper Chase was so fond of telling his students, law students learn how to “think like lawyers.” Thinking like a lawyer, however, is an elusive concept. Even those who can define it have trouble explaining why it’s a skill worth $ 150 an hour and up.
[I]f lawyers stopped writing like lawyers, they might have trouble charging as much for their work. Every time lawyers confound their clients with a case citation, a “heretofore,” or an “in the instant case,” they are letting everyone know that they possess something the nonlegal world does not.
That parlance — acquired by lawyers as part of their professional training — has become the way the outside world distinguishes genuine practitioners from charlatans.”
PUBLICATIONS
New! Gray Proctor, “Twelve Angry Taxpayers: Why the Constitution Might Guarantee a Jury Trial for Accuracy and Fraud Penalties in Tax Cases After SEC v. Jarkesy,” The Florida Bar Journal, Vol. 99, No. 3 (May/June 2025). Cited by two amicus parties - the Cato Institute and the Americans for Proseperity Foundation - at the cert stage in Hirsch v. United States Tax Court. The government has been ordered to respond.
SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), is one of three Supreme Court decisions from the summer of 2024 that have reshaped the landscape of administrative law. Jarkesy holds that when a penalty is the kind of action that courts of law would have heard at the founding, the Seventh Amendment and Article III require the government to collect it by filing suit in federal court before a jury — not by administrative fiat. For more than a century, the IRS has assessed and collected tax penalties as additions to the underlying tax, with no jury and no Article III judge. This article traces the history of tax penalty collections from the founding era through the Civil War and demonstrates that, as a matter of historical fact, tax penalties were collected by suit at common law with a right to a jury trial. If Jarkesy is to be taken seriously, this history imperils the current status quo of administrative tax penalty assessment.
We have also worked together at the intersection of the Eighth Amendment and promoter penalties.
Gray Proctor, “Summary Judgment, Scintillas, and Celotex: Reviewing the Federal Cases the Supreme Court is Considering Adopting in Wilsonart, LLC v. Lopez,” Journal of the Florida Justice Association, May/June 2020.
Gray Proctor, “Old Rule, Partially Retroactive, and No Remedy: Why Hurst Won’t Help Many on Florida’s Death Row.” 28 FED. SENT. R. 5 (2016).
Gray Proctor and Nancy King, “Post-Padilla: Padilla’s Puzzles for Review in State and Federal Courts,” 23 FED. SENT. R. 239 (2010).
Gray Proctor, “Ngo Excuses: Proving, Rebutting, and Excusing Exhaustion in Prisoner Suits after Woodford v. Ngo and Jones v. Bock,” 31 HAMLINE L. REV. 471 (2008).
Gray Proctor, “The New Role of Federal Habeas Courts in Guaranteeing the Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel,” Florida Bar Journal June 2015.
Gray Proctor, “What State Criminal Practitioners Should Know About Federal Habeas Corpus,” The Record (Journal of the Appellate Practice Section Summer 2014).
Gray Proctor, “Hurst v. Florida: Retroactivity Doctrine Allows Florida to Ignore the Constiutiton,” Bloomberg BNA Criminal Law Reporter (February 10, 2016)
Gray Proctor, “Retroactivity and the Uncertain Application of Johnson v. United States: Is the Rule ‘Constitutional’ on Post-Conviction Review?” Bloomberg BNA Criminal Law Reporter (July 1, 2015).
Gray Proctor, “Whiteside v. United States: Using 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Correct Serious Guidelines Errors Based on New Law,” BNA Bloomberg Criminal Law Reporter (April 30, 2014).
Gray Proctor, “Christmas Comes Early in the Eleventh Circuit: Using Bryant and 28 U.S.C. § 2241 When Section 2255 is Inadequate to Challenge Illegally Enhanced Sentences,” BNA Bloomberg Criminal Law Reporter (January 22, 2014).
Gray Proctor, “Attacking Aggravating Prior Convictions in Federal Habeas: Using Lackawanna and Daniels for . . . Practically Anything?,” BNA Bloomberg Criminal Law Reporter (December 4, 2013).
Gray Proctor, “The Supreme Court’s Ruling in Chaidez v. United States”: Averting a Flood of Padilla Litigation by Former Prisoners, BNA Bloomberg Criminal Law Reporter (May 22, 2013).
Gray Proctor, “Habeas Review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after Martinez v. Ryan,”: Federalization and Forum Shopping for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims BNA Bloomberg Criminal Law Reporter (December 5, 2012).
Speaker and Panelist, “The ‘Solo Practitioner:’ Pro Se Litigants and Their Obstacles to Justice,” Fordham Law School, January 25, 2011.
“If your attorney posts to his blog and puts it on his resume as a ‘publication’ - look out.”