Tell us about one of your appellate cases that you found particularly meaningful.

The most meaningful appellate matters that I’ve worked on have involved defending the constitutional and parental rights of same sex couples. The first appellate matter of impact was Embry v. Ryan, 11 So. 3d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), a landmark case holding Florida must recognize out of state adoptions by same-sex couples that I worked on while at my former firm with the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Florida Department of Children & Families v. E.L.A., 46 So. 3d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) followed where I worked on an amicus brief on behalf of the National Center for Lesbian Rights on the unconstitutionality of the Florida state statute barring gays from adopting. Next was D.M.T. v. T.M.H., 129 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 2013), a landmark matter before the Florida Supreme Court, where I had the opportunity to work on an amicus brief on behalf of the American Academy of Assisted Reproductive Technology Attorneys addressing constitutional issues regarding whether Florida would apply the same principles to determine the parentage of a child born through assisted reproduction to a same-sex female couple as it applies to children born through assisted reproduction to opposite-sex couples. The adoption rights of same-sex couples was solidified in the matter of In re D.P.P., 158 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), review denied, 148 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 2014), where I joined the team that obtained an appellate court decision that reinstated a judgment of adoption and reversed a lower court order that vacated that judgment of adoption on the basis that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider a petition for adoption filed by unmarried women.

I was proud to be part of the team that successfully represented the plaintiffs before the trial and appellate courts in the Florida state case that established marriage equality, Pareto v. Ruvin, (Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Case No. 14-1661 CA 24, Fla. 11th. Jud. Cir.). This followed my work as counsel of record on an amicus brief on behalf of the Campaign for Southern Equality and the Equality Federation in support of the petitioners for marriage equality recognition before the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).

How often do you encounter other LGBTQ+ attorneys, particularly those of color, in the appellate field? Why do you think that representation is important?

I’ve had the opportunity to work with a number of other LGBTQ+ attorneys, including those of color, before our trial and appellate courts in a number of matters such as those landmark matters solidifying the parental rights of same-sex couples and recognizing marriage equality in Florida. Diverse representation in the appellate bar is important to ensure that the varied experiences and viewpoints of our diverse communities are brought to light through the judicial process. The representation of the LGBTQ+ community would not be complete without the insights of the community itself.

What advice would you give to a law student of color who aspires to be where you are now?

I would advise law students of color to reach out to and foster relationships with mentors and sponsors who inspire and support them, irrespective of their background. I’ve had several mentors throughout my career without whom I would not have been able to achieve my many successes. While having an LGBTQ+ attorney of color as a mentor is certainly helpful, it’s important to foster relationships with other attorney mentors and sponsors throughout our careers.