attorney

Stephen Varnell

bio

Stephen practices in all areas of civil litigation, particularly in the areas of bankruptcy, government law, labor and employment law, business litigation, and appellate law. He entered private practice in 2021 after completing clerkships at Florida’s First DCA, the Florida Supreme Court, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Stephen is licensed to practice in all Florida courts, the Fourth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims. He is active in the Tallahassee legal community coaching the FSU Gaming Law Moot Court Team and serving as an adjunct professor in FSU’s MAAPP Program. Stephen also represents veterans who have had claims denied by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs on a pro bono basis. When he’s not working, Stephen enjoys playing golf, watching Formula 1, and playing with his dog, PresLee.

First

MHML has invested in the full access to the best research, administrative, and technological resources.

Where big firms have contracts with Westlaw or LexisNexis which require attorneys to incur a client-reimbursable cost of $130-$150 each time a search is performed, MHMLPA has acquired full access to both state and federal research at flat-fee rates, which enable attorneys to search as many sources as possible as much as necessary to answer complicated legal questions at no additional client cost. MHMLP also has acquired full, global access to Practical Law, a leading worldwide resource in every practice area. Where other firms either do not have access to Practical Law or only have access to it domestically or for one practice area or another, MHMLPA can research any issue on any topic worldwide at no additional cost to the client, and begin with forms and checklists for almost legal issue no matter how unique or specialized.

Second

MHML is not a small or solo firm, but a firm built upon alliances with other firms and trusted attorneys.

MHMLPA specializes in the areas of Litigation, Bankruptcy, and Complex Collections. But clients of MHML receive the benefit of the firm’s alliances which result in the full-service benefits of big law at a fraction of the cost. When a client of MHMLPA has an issue in an area outside the principal focus of the firm, the firm can provide general advice and counsel based upon its immense research resources and work with its alliance partners to ensure the client receive the desired results and value at all phases of the representation.

Third

MHML’s partners and contract paralegal format enable it to provide scalable value tailored to each client’s needs

with the full cost of enormous overheads. MHMLPA employs video-conferencing with its contract based paralegals who specialize in Litigation, Bankruptcy, and Complex Collection, and can add additional professionals as necessary for its current workflow. For clients with a large matter or many matters where the volume of work requires multiple attorneys not employed full time by MHMLPA, the network of alliances with other trusted lawyers enables MHMLPA to scale its team up as necessary without growing large fixed overhead expenses which would have to be passed through to the clients. This business model also allows MHMLPA to work with other trial lawyers to work-up middle-market or fee sensitive cases for trial, so that clients can resolve important issues that would not otherwise be able to be resolved in big law firm with more traditional billing models and fixed overhead expenses.

Finally

MHMLPA is flexible in its approach to billing and is open to alternative fee structures. Where traditional big law firms

bill almost exclusively based upon high hourly rates that have to cover high fixed expenses, MHMLPA strives to incorporate into engagements flat fees or success fees where possible. This ensures that the client and attorney have interests that are aligned in receiving the highest possible return on investment for the client and resolving matters at the earliest possible time for the highest possible value. MHMLPA is also accepts certain cases on a contingency fee basis, and/or can cap or discount fees as necessary to ensure substantial and ongoing value is being provided to its clients.

Focus

Bankruptcy
Civil Litigation and Appeals
Labor & Employment
Communications, Broadband, and New Media
Election Law, Administrative Law, and State & Local Government Law
Eminent Domain

Education

Louisiana State University, B.A., Political Science (2012)
Florida State University, M.S., Applied American Politics and Policy (2013)
Florida State University College of Law, J.D. (cum laude, 2017)

Civic Involvement

Associate Professor (FSU—Political Science, Fall 2024)
Moot Court Coach—FSU Gaming Law Moot Court Team
The Tallahassee Bar Association
The Federalist Society

Bar Admissions

Florida (all state courts)
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
S. Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims
S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs

Notable Cases

Florida Department of Legal Affairs v. North Broward Hospital District

Represented North Broward Hospital District (d/b/a/ “Broward Health”) in litigation brought by the Florida Attorney General. In 2018 the Florida AG sued manufactures and distributor of prescription opioids. Multiple public hospital districts also sued the same entities seeking to recover for unreimbursed medical expenses caused by the opioid pandemic. In 2021-2022, the AG settled with the opioid defendants. The settlement agreements committed settlement proceeds to cities and counties, but expressly prohibited hospital districts from receiving settlement funds. It also purported to extinguish the hospital districts’ claims. In April 2022, the AG sued the hospital districts seeking a declaratory judgment holding that the AG had the authority to extinguish the hospital districts’ claims. Broward Health countersued seeking declaratory relief and asserting a takings claim under the Florida Constitution. Judge Cooper of Florida’s Second Judicial Circuit entered summary judgment for the AG on all claims. This case is currently on appeal to the First District Court of Appeal.

Link v. Diaz

Represented the Florida Department of Education in Link v. Diaz. Plaintiffs sued the Florida Department of Education arguing that HB 233 violated the First Amendment. HB 233 required the Department to conduct an annual survey of students, faculty, and staff at all Florida public universities regarding their political affiliations and whether they felt they were being indoctrinated. It also prohibited professors from “shielding” student, meaning preventing students from being exposed to ideas they disagree with or that may make them uncomfortable. After a 6-day trial in front of Judge Walker in the Northern District of Florida, the Court entered judgment for Defendants on all claims. The Final Order entering judgment for Defendants is reported at Link v. Diaz, 669 F. Supp. 3d 1192 (N.D. Fla. 2023)

Mayor Michelle Miller v. Chair Of The Committee To Recall Mexico Beach Mayor Michele Miller (Mexico City Beach Mayoral Recall)

GrayRobinson Attorneys Len Collins and Stephen Varnell triumphed on behalf of a political committee seeking to recall Mayor Michele Miller in Mexico Beach, Fla. Len and Stephen assisted the committee in collecting the requisite signatures to place the recall question on the ballot, which initiated swift legal action from Mayor Miller to halt the impending election. However, the GrayRobinson team diligently advocated for the committee, prepared their defense, and meticulously addressed the mayor’s claims regarding the validity of the recall petition, and, despite the judge indicating a postponement of judgment until after the election, the proceedings pressed forward. On Tuesday, April 16, 2024, the residents of Mexico Beach cast their votes with a resounding 63% to 37% majority in favor of recalling the mayor, and the judge issued his order dismissing the complaint, effectively removing the mayor. Read – GrayRobinson Litigation Section Secures Significant Win in Mexico Beach Recall Election Case.

Feldman v. DBPR

Represented the American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) as an amicus in an appeal from Florida’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation (“DBPR”) finding that a Venezuelan architect was unlawfully practicing architecture and holding himself out as a Florida architect. The Appellant was not licensed to practice architecture in Florida but argued that he was practicing exclusively under an exception to the licensure requirement for those designing single-family and two-family homes. He also represented himself on his website and in other advertisements as an “architect” or “arquitecto” (Spanish for architect) and argued that he had a First Amendment right to refer to himself as such. On appeal, Florida’s First DCA agreed with AIA’s argument and upheld the discipline imposed on Appellant for improperly using the title “architect.”

Vitale v. Guido

Represented a member of a charter school’s school board in a lawsuit alleging violations of Florida’s Government in the Sunshine laws. The Plaintiff (an attorney representing himself) requested public records regarding the school’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which Defendants produced. Defendants argued that Plaintiff sued solely to harass the school and its board members. The trial court agreed, holding that Plaintiff’s claims were brought for an “improper purpose,” see § 119.12(3), Fla. Stat., and awarding attorneys’ fees to Defendants. This decision was upheld on appeal to Florida’s Second DCA and proceedings are currently pending before the trial court to determine the amount of Defendants’ fee award.