Andrew M. Feldman


9130 South Dadeland Boulevard Datran Two - Suite 2000 Miami FL 33156





Andrew Feldman is a partner in Klein Park & Lowe’s professional liability division. Since joining KPL in 2012, Andrew has taken an active role in the firm’s appellate files, which have ranged from matters involving motions to quash service to affirming final judgments in high-exposure malpractice claims.

Andrew’s litigation practice focuses on the defense of professionals. He has been involved in the defense of numerous civil claims against lawyers for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duties, and has assisted in the defense and resolution of significant sanctions disputes. Andrew’s practice also includes defending ethics matters in front of The Florida Bar, general commercial litigation, insurance coverage and litigation including bad faith and general liability defense.

Andrew received his B.A. in Political Science from Arizona State University (2007), and earned his Juris Doctor, with honors, from St. Thomas University School of Law (2012). He is admitted to practice in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Speaking engagements:

November 2015: University of Miami Professional Responsibility & Ethics Program clinic with Professor Jan Jacobowitz: Discussion on the relationship between ethical rules and civil liability (with Mark Sullivan).


Legal Malpractice ClaimsAdvanced Strategies for Case-Within-a-Case Litigation, 43 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 331 (2017)

Ethics and Cyber Security Issues, published in the ABA Young Lawyers Division Summer 2016 Newsletter

Lawyer Referral Fees and the (Unintended?) Legacy of Noris,
Featured Article in the March/April 2021 edition of the Florida Bar Journal

Notable results:

  • Driessen v. University of Miami School of Law, 3D18-999, 2018 WL 4608760 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 26, 2018)

The Third District affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing the appellant/plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice based on her failure to state a cause of action against the law school’s Children and Youth Law Clinic. The court agreed with defense counsel that the plaintiff was not a client of the clinic, which represented her daughter in a guardianship proceeding, and she therefore lacked standing to sue the University for legal malpractice. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s alternative theory that she was an intended third party beneficiary of the representation and could therefore allege an exception to Florida’s contractual privity requirement.

  • Meyrowitz v. Brendel, 16-81793-CIV (S.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2018)

The district court granted final summary judgment for the defendant, in addition to his motion for attorney fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. In a 22-page order, the court agreed with defense counsel’s argument that the claims at issue could have been raised during a 2016 binding arbitration proceeding between the same parties. Under the circumstances, the court held that the plaintiffs had voluntarily relinquished the right to pursue affirmative relief in connection with the underlying dispute, and therefore, collateral estoppel and res judicata principles precluded their recovery of any damages arising from the same events. Based on these findings, the court also granted the Defendant’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions for what it described as the “Plaintiffs’ and their counsel’s bad faith conduct” in pursuing the claims.

  • Dingman v. Allo Realty, Inc., 242 So.3d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)

The Fourth District affirmed a final summary judgment obtained by partner Houston Park and associate Thomas Jablonski in favor of a property management company in a premises liability case arising from a dog bite. The court affirmed, without opinion, the final judgment in which the trial court found that the defendant lacked actual or constructive notice of a vicious dog on the premises and thus had no duty to protect the plaintiff from injury.

  • Steinhauser v. Steinhauser, 17-80566-CIV, 2018 WL 1100850 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2018)

The district court dismissed fraud claims with prejudice, citing the plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The claims were founded on allegations that a defendant attorney made misrepresentations to the children of his client in the context of a trust dispute mediation in which the children were supposedly told that signing certain settlement documents would be in their best financial interests, but which actually divested them of valuable rights and interests. The court agreed with counsel’s position that the alleged false representation forming the basis of the plaintiffs’ fraud claims was not actionable since it did not relate to an existing or pre-existing fact, and was instead a mere opinion incapable of factual verification. In dismissing the claims against the attorney with prejudice, the court also agreed with counsel’s argument that the complaint’s allegations could not support an implied fiduciary relationship.

  • Weisser v. Dolan, 3D17-123, 2017 WL 5760629 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 29, 2017):

Affirming a final summary judgment secured by partners Rob Klein and Alex Diaz in a legal malpractice action predicated on claims that the defendant law firm allowed the statute of limitations to expire in a potential personal injury matter in Puerto Rico. In a written opinion, the Third District Court of Appeal accepted the defendants’ argument that their requests for insurance information effectively tolled the statute. The court also agreed with firm’s contention that it withdrew from the representation with approximately three months left to file a claim, based on Puerto Rico’s recognition of “extrajudicial tolling,” and consequently found that as a matter of law, the firm could not be liable under the plaintiff’s theory of negligence.

  • Seven Skies Company, Inc. v. Sand Sunset, LLC, and Nicholas Daniels, 3D16-2849 (Fla. 3d DCA July 12, 2017)

Affirming the trial court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to the plaintiff in connection with a commercial lease dispute and resulting trial. The Third District rejected the defendant/appellant’s claim that it was the “prevailing party” at trial based on the jury’s inconsequential finding that the plaintiff’s actions giving rise to the dispute amounted to a technical breach of the lease.

  • Brendel v. Meyrowitz, 3:15-CV-1928-D, 2017 WL 1178244 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2017)

Confirming an arbitration award secured by Rob Klein for the sum of $1,018,254 representing compensatory and treble damages in connection with a joint venture to mine diamonds in Sierra Leone. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas accepted the arbitrator’s determination that the defendants fraudulently induced the plaintiff into investing substantial funds based on specific promises of how and when his investment would be used.

  • Nipataruedi v. Sundtarnusorn, 3D16-1776, 2017 WL 514329 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)

Affirming the denial of a defendant’s motion to quash service of process on a resident of Thailand in a commercial matter. The Third District rejected the defendant/appellant’s contention that service was not properly made in accordance with Thai law.

  • Watson v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, P.A., 195 So.3d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)

Affirming the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Fla. Stat. In agreeing with the points raised in the appellees’ brief, the Fourth District expressly held that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by ordering a party to pay attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105(1) on its own initiative, even if a motion is filed by a party and the moving party fails to comply with the safe harbor requirements of the rule, as long as it can be determined from the record that the trial court is not simply “adopting” the ineffective motion.

  • Watson v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, P.A., 178 So.3d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)

In an action for defamation and malicious prosecution brought by the plaintiff against her former co-counsel in an underlying class action, the Fourth District affirmed the trial court’s determination to strike the plaintiff’s complaint as a sham pleading, while rejecting her core contention that statements made by one of the defendants to a reporter and published in the Daily Business Review were defamatory.

  • Navigators Ins. Co. v. Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers, 158 So.3d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)

Affirming summary judgment in a legal malpractice action which culminated in a defense verdict at the end of a two-week jury trial defended by partner Rob Klein. In the appeal, the Second District found no error in the trial court’s determination that summary judgment was proper where plaintiff, an insurance company, could not proceed as a third-party beneficiary, subrogee or assignee of any claims potentially belonging to its insured.

  • Gelleni v. Bohn, 138 So.3d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)

Affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the claims based on a valid arbitration agreement between an attorney and his former client.

  • Offen v. Inter-Cont’l Hotels Corp., 141 So.3d 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)

The court affirmed a directed verdict in a highly-publicized lawsuit in which the plaintiff asserted claims for defamation and malicious prosecution, in addition to several alternative theories. The Third District declined to reverse the defense verdict which was based on the plaintiff’s failure to introduce any evidence at trial linking the defendant or its agents to the allegedly wrongful actions.

  • Soberon v. Shelborne Ocean Beach Hotel Corp., 109 So.3d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)

Affirming a final summary judgment in favor of a Miami Beach hotel, disposing of a negligence claim brought on behalf of a guest who was allegedly injured while gratuitously undertaking repairs to a fixture in one of the hotel’s restrooms.