Print Page   Email Page
Photo of Stephen T. Maher

Stephen T. Maher

Partner
Biography

Stephen Maher offers clients the experience of a skilled lawyer and the communications skills of an accomplished educator.  He represents clients in cases that need in-depth analysis and strategic counsel. He practices in the Miami office.

Experience

During more than 30 years in administrative law, litigation and appellate review, Mr. Maher gained national experience as both a litigator and a legal educator. At Shutts & Bowen, he helps clients pursue their goals in court and before government agencies. He also serves as counsel in judicial reviews of litigation and administrative action by local, state and federal government.

Having handled cases that set important precedents in Florida, especially in administrative law, Mr. Maher tackles issues in diverse areas. His work includes agency proceedings, including those before the Division of Administrative Hearings, as well as appearances before state and local boards and commissions, licensing, professional discipline, permitting, petitions to initiate rulemaking, rulemaking hearings, rule challenges, rule waivers and variances, general regulatory matters, and judicial review of agency actions.

An experienced litigator, Mr. Maher also counsels clients and represents them at trial, on appeal and in international and domestic arbitrations. He has considerable appellate experience and has appeared in courts at the state and federal levels. This includes handling cases in every Florida District Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and filing for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

Legal Writing

Mr. Maher has written a variety of law review articles centered in four areas, Clinical Legal Education, lawyers and lawyering, Florida Administrative Law and other topics in Florida law.  These articles include:

  • Beyond Notice and Comment: An Examination of the Rulemaking Process in Florida, Virginia Bar Association News Journal, July, 2002 at 12, 14-17;
  • How the Glitch Stole Christmas: The 1997 Amendments to the Florida Administrative Procedure Act, 25 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 235-72 (1998);
  • The Death of Rules:  How Politics is Suffocating Florida,  8 ST. THOMAS L. REV. 313-347 (1996);
  • Lawfutures, or, Will You Still Need Me, Will You Still Feed Me, When I'm Sixty-Four, 1 U. RICH. J.L. & TECH.6 (April, 1995) (essay in the first issue of the first law journal to be published entirely on the Internet);
  • Five Easy Pieces on Changing the Florida Administrative Procedure Act:  An Introduction to the Symposium, 22 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 243-245 (1994)(and organized the Symposium on the Florida Administrative Procedure Act in that issue);
  • Getting Into The Act, 22 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 277-306 (1994);
  • The Florida Cabinet:  Is it Time for Remodeling?  18 NOVA L. REV. 1123-1132 (1994);
  • Emergency Decisionmaking During the State of Florida's Response to Hurricane Andrew, 17 NOVA L. REV. 1009-1027 (1993);
  • The 1991 and 1992 Amendments to the Florida Administrative Procedure Act, 20 FLA. ST.U.L. REV. 367-439 (1992);
  • Clinical Legal Education in the Age of Unreason, 40 BUFF. L. REV. 809-834 (1992);
  • No Easy Walk to Freedom, 1 DIST. COL. L. REV. 243 267 (1992);
  • Patricia Ann Dore and The Florida Administrative Procedure Act, 19 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 951 956 (1992);
  • The Seventh Administrative Law Conference Chairman's Introduction To the Symposium Issue, 18 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 607 616 (1991)(and organized symposium);
  • We're No Angels:  Rulemaking and Judicial Review in Florida, 18 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 767 853 (1991);
  • Clinical Legal Education — Past, Present and Future, THE FLORIDA BAR JOURNAL, July/August 1991, at 28 (and organized Journal theme issue on clinical legal education and served as guest editor);
  • The Praise of Folly:  A Defense of Practice Supervision in Clinical Legal Education, 69 U. NEB. L. REV. 537 663 (1990);
  • A Strategy For Increasing the Mental and Emotional Fitness of Bar Applicants, 23 IND. L. REV. 821 861 (1990)(co-authored with Dr. Lori Blum). 

Speaking Engagements

Mr. Maher is frequently asked to lecture on administrative law and other legal issues as well. He has appeared before groups including various bar associations, the International Legislative Drafting Institute at Tulane Law School, the National Association of Secretaries of State, and Price Waterhouse Legal Tech (in Miami, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta and Washington).

Significant Appellate Decisions

Mr. Maher has participated in a number of cases that have established important legal precedents.  These include:

National City Bank v. Accent Marketing Assocaites, LLC, -- So. 3d --. 2011 WL 5170007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (Contractor brought action against homeowners to foreclose a construction lien, and homeowners brought third-party complaint against bank for improperly disbursing money from a construction loan directly to contractor.  After entry of default judgment against bank, the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County granted bank's motion to set aside the default on the basis of excusable neglect.  Homeowners appealed, and the District Court of Appeal, 46 So.3d 1199, reversed and remanded.  On remand, bank moved for a hearing on its alternative argument that it had a due process entitlement to a hearing on unliquidated damages.  The Circuit Court, denied the motion and the Bank appealed.  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded and held that: (1) the doctrine of res judicata did not bar trial court from considering bank's alternative argument on remand, and (2) the doctrine of law of the case did not bar trial court from considering bank's alternative argument on remand.)

SR Acquisitions-Florida City, LLC v. San Remo Homes at Florida City LLC, -- So. 3d --, 2011 WL 5964348 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (Mortgagee, which was formed by two of the three members of mortgagor in order to purchase the mortgage loan from the original lender, filed petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel trial court in its underlying foreclosure action against mortgagor to set a foreclosure sale and deny any further requests for postponements of the date.  The Third District Court of Appeal held that mortgagee was entitled to writ of mandamus compelling trial court to rule on pending motion by non-party third member of mortgagor for relief from the foreclosure judgment.)

Rothman-Browning v. Marshall, -- So. 3d --, 2011 WL 6373038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (Co-trustee of trust benefiting ward filed objection to guardianship plan filed by guardian of ward's person 30 days after the plan was filed.  The Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach Countywhich had already approved the plan, denied the objection as untimely.  Co-trustee appealed.  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded and held that co-trustee’s objection was timely and that she was entitled to a hearing on her objection.)

Diaz v. State, Agency for Health Care Administration, 65 So. 3d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (Group homes for developmentally disabled Medicaid recipients. and the operator of the group homes, appealed from an order of the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) dismissing, with prejudice, their petition for formal administrative hearing, and an order of the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) denying their petition for formal administrative hearing, arising out of APD's termination without cause of its Medicaid provider agreement with operator, and AHCA's resulting termination of operator's Medicaid provider number.  The Third District Court of Appeal held that: (1) no contractual provision or legal authority required resolution of the dispute to occur in a forum other than the circuit court, and (2) termination of the provider agreement without cause did not implicate operator's substantial interests, so as to warrant resolution of the dispute by administrative proceedings.)

Hock v. Legacy Bank of Florida, -- So. 3d --,  2011 WL 1485398 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (Mortgagee brought action to foreclose home equity mortgage, and mortgagors asserted affirmative defenses and a counterclaim, including an affirmative defense of rescission pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).  The Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, entered order requiring mortgagors to post a $400,000 bond into the court registry as a condition of maintaining the rescission affirmative defense.  Mortgagors sought review of that order by a petition for writ of certiorari.  The Fourth District Court of Appeal refused to grant certiorari and held that mortgagors failed to show that trial court's order would cause irreparable harm not remediable on appeal.) 

Genovese v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, 74 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2011) (Supreme Court of Florida, answering question certified to it by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, held that attorney-client privileged communications are not discoverable in an action by a first-party insured against insurer for bad faith).

PNC Bank v. Progressive Employer Services II, 55 So. 3d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (Borrowers brought action against lender alleging that lender breached credit agreement entered into by the parties.  The Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of borrowers.  Lender appealed.  The Fourth District reversed, holding that the lender did not breach the agreement, that the early termination fee provision did not constitute a liquidated damages provision, and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying lender's motion to amend to add a counterclaim.)

Bristol West Insurance Company v. MD Readers, Inc., 52 So. 3d 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (Provider of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) services brought declaratory judgment action against automobile insurer, seeking a declaration as to the proper calculation for reimbursement of MRI services under personal injury protection (PIP) coverage.  The Circuit Court certified class of MRI service providers who sought reimbursement from insurer, and Insurer appealed.  The Fourth District held that the provider was not required to serve insurer with pre-suit notice, and thus its failure to do so did not disqualify it from serving as class representative.  However, and the concurring Judge noted “since this is already 2010, any subsequently-filed cause of action for benefits due, either pursuant to contract or statute, would be barred by relevant statutes of limitations.  See §§ 95.11(2)(b) and (3)(f), Fla. Stat.  Therefore, I cannot envision that a declaration of the proper calculations of fees for services rendered in 2004 and 2005 serves any useful purpose, because the class's rights are no longer affected by a dispute, see § 86.021, Fla. Stat. (2010), as the time has long since passed for making a claim for benefits under the statute and/or contract.”).

Vidal v. SunTrust Bank, 41 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (reversing order denying Vidal’s motion to quash service and holding, as matter of first impression, that process server's failure to note time of service of bank's complaint on copy of complaint that was served on debtor rendered service of complaint defective, and that bank's re-service of summons and complaint on debtor while debtor's appeal from denial of motion to quash was pending did not render debtor's appeal moot).

Miami-Dade County v. Concrete Structures, 36 So. 3d 762 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (The Third District affirmed, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and properly considered the purpose and underlying intent of the Settlement Agreement, which was to bring CSI into compliance with federal, state and local permitting requirements within a reasonable period, not to put them out of business.)

World Fuel Corp. v. Geithner, 568 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2009) (Dismissing an appeal by the Treasury Secretary and others from a remand order entered by the District Court on the basis that it was not reviewable.  The District Court had, over the government’s objections, remanded the matter to the Office of Foreign Assets Control to reconsider an earlier decision denying the client a license).

Board of Medicine v. Vazquez, 11 So.3d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (Affirming, in all respects, an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge determining that, under the provisions of the Florida Administrative Procedure Act, a Board of Medicine Order could not be relied upon because it constituted an unpromulgated rule).

CNL Resort Hotel, L.P. v. City of Doral, 991 So.2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)(In an interlocutory administrative appeal, Third District reversed an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings that struck allegations of reverse spot planning and special use planning from a challenge to a proposed comprehensive plan, finding that such allegations were not allegations of a taking of property without due process of law and were thus properly raised before the Division, and noting that:  “Private property rights have long been viewed as sacrosanct and fundamentally immune from government interference.”)

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., v. Valat International Holdings, Ltd., 987 So.2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (On appeal from a judgment and an order refusing to vacate the judgment entered against a garnishee, Third District vacated a substantial default judgment and held that the judgment creditor in the garnishment action who obtained a default on writs of garnishment served on the garnishee “accepted the risks associated with being limited to the allegations contained on the faces of the writs” and, since the writs did not mention the corporation that the garnishor subsequently contended was connected to debtors, default judgment was improperly entered against the garnishee based on its failure to withhold funds held in the corporation’s name.)

Weisser v. PNC Bank, 967 So.2d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)(Third District affirmed order dismissing action by borrower based upon improper venue where mandatory forum selection clauses in loan application and in subsequent interest rate lock agreement between borrower and lender selected different states as the exclusive forum for resolution of disputes between the parties.  The fact that each agreement selected a different state did not create an ambiguity rendering the forum selection clauses permissive rather than mandatory where interest rate lock agreement provided that nothing in it could modify the loan application, making the conflicting forum selection clause in such interest rate lock agreement unenforceable and of no effect.)

Coastal Fuels Marketing, Inc. v. Canaveral Port Authority, 962 So.2d 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)(Fifth District determined that the Canaveral Port Authority is not an agency as that term is defined in the Florida Administrative Procedure Act and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to review an Authority decision pursuant to that Act, so it transferred the case to circuit court for review.)

Simmons v. State, Agency for Health Care Administration, 950 So.2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)(The First District issued a writ of mandamus, as requested by client, and held that a state agency has a duty to enter an order granting or denying an administrative petition filed under the Florida Administrative Procedure Act, and may not merely send a letter refusing to entertain the petition).

5220 Biscayne Blvd., LLC v. Stebbins, 937 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (prohibition raising issue of first impression concerning the meaning of 30-day time limit in Section 113.3215(3), Florida Statutes).

Blinco v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 400 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2005)(United States Court of Appeals held that arbitration clause was binding on a non-signatory of the arbitration agreement under the particular facts of the case, and ordered arbitration, as requested by client).

Blinco v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 366 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2004)( United States Court of Appeals held, as a matter of first impression, that since appeal was not frivolous, appellant seeking arbitration that had been denied below was entitled to a stay of the district court proceedings below, as requested by client, pending resolution of the appeal from that denial).

Barfield v. Department of Health, 805 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(First District clarified the substantive jurisdiction limitation on board action within the Department of Health.  The case was voted the second most important Florida administrative law case in the last ten years at a recent Pat Dore Administrative Law Conference).

Plante v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 716 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(Fourth District reversed imposition of professional discipline by a state agency that had refused to consider its own precedents before imposing discipline, as requested by client, and remanded for reconsideration to state agency to consider agencies own precedents before imposing discipline).

Arias v. State, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 710 So.2d 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(Third District held that the state agency’s failure to adopt penalty guidelines as required by Legislature required reversal of a professional discipline penalty imposed in the absence of such guidelines, and Court allowed no remand for the imposition of any penalty, as requested by client).

Son v. Department of Professional Regulation, 608 So.2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(Third District allowed licensee to avoid professional discipline by rebutting presumption of guilt raised by plea of nolo contendre in criminal case, as requested by client).

McArthur v. Firestone, 817 F.2d 1548 (11th Cir. 1987) (rejecting mootness of challenge to unconstitutionality of election disclosure requirements as applied).

State v. Powell, 497 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 1986) (deciding constitutionality of Section 732.9185, Florida Statutes).

Guerra v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 427 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(Third District required rulemaking by a state agency to correct procedurally deficient agency practice rules, as client requested).

Lamm v. Chapman, 413 So.2d 749 (Fla. 1982) (finding that Sections 409.2561(1)-(3) do not infringe on the constitutional right to be free from imprisonment for debt).

Curtis v. Taylor, 625 F.2d 645 on rehearing, 648 F.2d 946 (5th Cir. 1980) (determining adequacy of remedies under Florida Administrative Procedure Act and ruling on exhaustion and abstention issues).

Garrido v. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 386 So.2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)(First District required state agency to hold fact finding proceedings on petition to initiate rulemaking where agency disputed material facts in petition, as client requested).

Williams v. Florida Department of Commerce, 374 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(Third District found that refusal to issue subpoenas in state administrative proceedings was reversible error, as client requested).

State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Florida Project Directors, 368 So.2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)(First District affirmed proposed rule challenge’s invalidation of state agency rule incorporating forms by reference only, as client requested).

Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 362 So.2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)(First District provided an early interpretation of Florida Administrative Procedure Act participation requirements in state agency rulemaking proceedings).

Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)(First District imposed the burden of proof in state administrative proceedings under new Florida Administrative Procedure Act that was requested by clients).

Other Professional Activities

Mr. Maher's international experience has included trips to South Africa after the end of apartheid as part of a delegation from the International Legislative Drafting Institute. There he lectured on administrative law and the Internet and consulted on proposed changes to South African law as that country worked to create its first administrative procedure act.

In Florida, Mr. Maher has been active in the organized bar. He served as Chair of the Administrative Law Section of The Florida Bar and as Chair of the Council of Sections of The Florida Bar. He also served as a director and member of the Executive Committee of The Florida Bar Foundation, where he is a Life Member.

Background

Before joining the firm, Mr. Maher was a full-time faculty member at the University of Miami Law School. There he taught a variety of subjects, directed the school's Clinical Program and coached the school's moot court teams. Before that, he practiced law with a national law firm.

Experience in Legal Training

Mr. Maher used his experience in higher education to train lawyers throughout the country on discovery and trial practice. Through work as a consultant with the Practicing Law Institute, he trained lawyers in-house at large law firms, using courses and materials he designed. He trained others on trial evidence, tactics and skills at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Conference, the New York Legal Aid Society, the University of Pennsylvania Law School Center on Professionalism, and George Washington University, using interactive training materials developed at Stanford Law School.

Recognition

  • Martindale Hubbell A-V Rated
  • Florida Super Lawyers, selected for inclusion in Appellate Law 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011

Education

  • University of Miami, J.D.,1975
  • New York University, B.A., Psychology,1971

Bar Admissions

  • The Florida Bar
  • District of Columbia Bar

Court Admissions

  • U.S. District Court for the Northern, Middle and Southern Districts of Florida
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth and Eleventh Circuits
  • U.S. Supreme Court

Affiliations

  • American Bar Association
  • Dade County Bar Association
  • The Florida Bar, Administrative Law Section, Former Chair
  • The Florida Bar, Council of Sections, Former Chair
  • The Florida Bar Foundation, Former Member of the Executive Committee, Former Director & Life Member
  • Southern District Trial Bar