Holly is a shareholder in the firm's Professional Liability Department where she focuses on Florida director & officer disputes in not-for-profit condominium and other community associations. These disputes include Fair Housing Act (FHA) claims, condo disputes under Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, and homeowners’ association disputes under Chapter 720. Holly has strong defense experience at every level including pre-suit and for actions filed before various governmental agencies, as well as in state and federal courts.
Holly's practice is also focused on a variety of employment disputes. Holly has defended multiple employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims at all levels including disability and racial discrimination claims before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Further, Holly has also handled a variety of consumer financial services litigation and compliance matters. She has additionally been involved in a range of other civil litigation matters including breach of contract issues, commercial disputes and real estate actions.
Holly received her juris doctor from Hofstra University School of Law after majoring in Economics and English at Florida International University. She is admitted to practice law in the states of Florida, New York, and New Jersey, and enjoys reading all manner of fiction.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Florida First DCA Clarifies Limits of Whistleblower and First Amendment Retaliation Claims by Public Employees
November 3, 2026
Earlier this year, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Florida Department of Health and related individual defendants, in this whistleblower retaliation lawsuit arising from the Plaintiff/former employee’s (Rebekah Jones) work on the Department of Health’s public-facing COVID-19 data portal during the global pandemic. During the lawsuit, Jones claimed that she was terminated after refusing to alter COVID-19 data and that her actions constituted protected whistleblower activity. The First DCA disagreed, emphasizing that Florida’s Whistleblower’s Act requires an employee to make a qualifying disclosure of a violation of law or other prohibited conduct to an appropriate recipient at some point in time before the adverse employment action occurs. The court rejected Jones’ theory that the statute protects an employee from “preemptive retaliation,” which would be retaliation based on an anticipated future disclosure. The court also concluded that Jones’s statements about how she was being treated at work did not amount to a protected disclosure of a violation of law under the statute, and that her refusal to perform certain job duties likewise did not constitute protected activity. The First DCA also rejected Jones’ claim that she had a First Amendment retaliation claim because all of the pertinent communications were made during the course of Jones’ employment responsibilities, rather than as a private citizen. The Jones decision makes clear that an employee’s allegations of workplace wrongdoing, standing alone or raised too late, may not be enough to support a retaliation claim.
Legal Updates for Real Estate E&O Liability
The Listing Agreement Controls in Real Estate Commission Dispute Between Broker and Seller
May 7, 2026
Carmona Realty Group, LLC, a licensed real estate broker, pursued a commission after procuring multiple offers at or above the listing price for a Miami property, but the seller repeatedly rejected or ignored those offers while attempting to increase the price outside the written listing agreement. The parties had executed an exclusive right of sale listing agreement setting the price at $499,500 and providing for a 5% commission. Although the seller later signed separate “instructions to agents” imposing additional requirements such as appraisal contingencies, inspection attachments, and deposit conditions, those instructions were never signed by the broker and were not referenced in the listing agreement. After at least seven offers were presented, including full-price or above-list offers, the seller declined to proceed, citing varying reasons including furniture inclusion, shutters, and financing terms, while also informally seeking a higher price. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling in favor of the seller, holding that the “instructions to agents” were not incorporated into the listing agreement and could not be used to defeat the broker’s entitlement to a commission. Applying Florida contract principles and the statute of frauds, the court emphasized that modifications to a listing agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties, and that mere contemporaneous documents lacking mutual assent and cross-reference do not become part of the contract. The court further found that the broker satisfied its obligation by producing ready, willing, and able buyers on the agreed terms, and that the seller’s later-asserted justifications did not negate the broker’s right to compensation. This decision underscores the importance of real estate brokers and professionals ensuring that all material terms and conditions are clearly incorporated into the listing agreement itself, as well as documenting all communications when sellers reject conforming offers for reasons outside the contract.
