Jonathan concentrates his practice of law in complex, high-exposure litigation and has litigated a wide array of professional liability and commercial cases in federal and state courts, as well as arbitration forums, throughout the country. He zealously defends professionals in tort and contract actions, including attorneys, accountants, architects, engineers, contractors, directors and officers, brokers, dealers and fiduciaries. He has extensive experience with real estate actions, defending numerous parties, including real estate agents, brokers, developers, appraisers, title and settlement agents, and lenders.
Jonathan devotes considerable time on behalf of his clients in complex commercial, contract, construction, fraud, professional negligence/malpractice, statutory violations, shareholder/member disputes, directors/officers, business tort, and whistleblower litigation, and he has tried many cases to verdict. He brings to the firm a unique combination of business and litigation skills developed during his career. This background is invaluable to his representation of various individuals, private and public companies, including Fortune 500 corporations, and non-profit entities in a broad range of matters. He is highly sought after by clients and insurance carriers for his ability to handle extremely complex and difficult matters.
Jonathan graduated from the University of Texas at Austin in 1992, where he received his Bachelor of Business Administration degree in finance. He obtained his juris doctor in 1996 from the University of Miami School of Law, graduating cum laude. Jonathan is admitted to the Bar of the state of Florida. He is also admitted to practice before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States District Court for the Southern, Middle and Northern Districts of Florida.
Results
Court affirms dismissal of real estate agent and his broker.
Our attorneys succeeded in obtaining an affirmance by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The Fourth District affirmed the dismissal, with prejudice, of our clients, a listing real estate agent and his broker, in an alleged negligence and fraud case. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing their pleadings due to their attorney’s conduct. The court detailed how the plaintiff’s attorney dropped the ball in litigating the case in a separate opinion reversing the plaintiffs’ attorney’s contempt conviction.
Arbitration Defense Verdict for Prominent Florida Real Estate Developer
Marshall Dennehey and its shareholder, Jonathan E. Kanov, Esq., were successful in a South Florida arbitration representing a prominent Florida real estate developer against construction damage claims brought by a neighboring property’s condominium association. In a final, binding ruling, the arbitrator issued a complete defense verdict, plus an award of attorney’s fees and costs to the developer. The plaintiff condominium association had contended that construction of the developer’s luxury condominium tower caused many areas of their property to be damaged, largely from vibrations/seismic activity during demolition and construction. The plaintiff demanded $1.2 million in damages pursuant to a contract that was entered into by the parties covering the construction activity. The arbitrator agreed with the defense’s arguments that the “conditions the claimant contends were caused by vibration damage from construction activities are actually age-related deterioration and the result of deferred maintenance. Additionally, there is no evidentiary basis to allocate uncompensated damage associated with the pool and pool deck to the developer, as opposed to preexisting conditions requiring repair and upgrades required for code compliance.” Marshall Dennehey presented highly credible experts and fact witnesses in support of its defense. Another key to the defense verdict was Marshall Dennehey’s effective cross examination of the claimant’s structural engineering expert on construction vibration/seismic activity data, which formed the crux of their damage claims.
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability
Florida Fourth DCA Clarifies Limits of Attorney Liability in Third‑Party Opinion Letters
March 1, 2026
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal recently affirmed that an attorney who prepares an opinion letter on behalf of the borrowers for the benefit of the lender in an arms-length transaction does not owe a duty to the lender. In this case, a $7.5 million loan was issued to the operators of ultra-luxury auto dealerships, and its cars, such as a 2019 McLaren Senna, were used as collateral for the loan. The defendant issued an opinion letter on behalf of the borrowers, which was required by the claimant as a condition for funding the loan. The opinion letter contained representations based on the loan documents, such as that the borrowers had no known pending or threatened claims, no other encumbrances, and that claimant would have a valid security interest in the autos used as collateral. After the borrowers defaulted on the loan, claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty were brought against the defendant for alleged misrepresentations in the opinion letter. The claimant demanded $9,000,000 in damages, contending that it wouldn’t have made the loan if not for the defendant’s misrepresentations. The claimant filed competing summary judgment motions. Ultimately, the judge agreed with the defense argument that despite stating in the opinion letter that the claimant could rely on his representations, there is no duty imposed on a party or its counsel to act for the benefit or protection of the opposing party in an arms-length commercial transaction. If the claimant chose to rely on such representations, that is a calculated risk with no recourse against the defendant for its own failure to investigate further. A final judgment in favor of the defendant with an award of costs was entered. The claimant appealed to the 4th DCA, who affirmed the judgment. This case expands past precedent and is highly instructive for attorneys issuing third party opinion letters and those that choose to rely upon them.
Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability
Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability - CASE LAW UPDATE
September 1, 2025
Arbitration Clause in Attorney Retainer Agreement Covering Professional Negligence Claims Found to Be Valid and Binding Hill v. Farah & Farah, No. 2024-11972-CICI (Volusia) A Florida state circuit court enforced a mandatory arbitration clause in a retainer agreement, thus dismissing a legal malpractice claims against a law firm filed by a former client. The agreement contained a mandatory arbitration clause, which stated that any and all legal disputes arising out of or relating to the agreement will be resolved through a binding arbitration proceeding administered in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Rejecting arguments that the clause failed to comply with Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i) and that the firm waived its right to arbitrate by delay, the court held that the agreement was enforceable and compelled arbitration under Florida’s Revised Arbitration Code. The law firm filed a motion to dismiss and/or to compel arbitration. In opposition, their former client, the plaintiff, argued that the agreement failed to comply with Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i), which provides required language notifying the client that he or she should consider consulting with another lawyer about the advisability of entering into an agreement with an arbitration provision concerning fee disputes. That language was included in the agreement, but the law firm added “and other” to the first sentence of the notice, which states in full: “NOTICE: This agreement contains provisions requiring arbitration of fee and other disputes.” Further, the plaintiff contended that the notice language in the agreement was ineffective since it was underlined rather than solely in bold type. These arguments were rejected by the court. The plaintiff also argued that the law firm waived its right to arbitrate her malpractice claims by failing to invoke the arbitration clause or to reserve the right to do so in the order of withdrawal as counsel, or in the two years before the plaintiff filed her complaint. Waiver of the right to arbitrate may be found if the party seeking arbitration first answered the complaint and then engaged in discovery regarding the merits of a claim before moving to compel arbitration. Olson Elec. Co. v. Winter Park Redev. Agency, 987 So. 2d 178, 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Ibis Lakes HOA, Inc. v. Ibis Isle HOA, Inc., 102 So. 3d 722, 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“The active participation in litigation or the propounding of discovery would be circumstances where the right to arbitrate would be deemed waived.”). All doubts regarding waiver should be construed in favor of arbitration. Retail Detail Merch., LLC, v. Murphy, 373 So. 3d 670, 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023). The trial court also rejected the plaintiff’s position that the law firm waived its right to arbitrate, as the motion to dismiss and/or to compel arbitration was filed as the firm’s initial response to the malpractice complaint. The trial court held that the agreement required the plaintiff to submit her claims for professional negligence to binding arbitration. The case was dismissed pursuant to Fla. Stat. Chapter 682, Revised Florida Arbitration Code. The plaintiff has appealed the ruling to the 5th District Court of Appeal, which remains pending. Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – September 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.
