M A Dinkin Law Firm, PLLC

07/30/2026

Recent review from a new client "Man you are an absolute gangster and I agree to all of the below. Any chance you can handle matters in all 50 states? And I’m only being slightly sarcastic …."

07/25/2026

UPDATE: Another multi-million dollar judgment creditor has just retained us. That's 3 in one week! We were retained on two seven figure judgments this week alone! Now we do what we do best.

AV® Preeminent® is a certification mark used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards, and policies. Martindale-Hubbell® is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judi...

07/22/2026

Please to announce that I am now admitted to the District Court in Colorado and able to represent creditors in Colorado Bankruptcy Court as well.

06/25/2026

# Safe Harbor, Sharp Teeth: How Silver Fox Turns Paper Into Money

Some lawyers think judgment enforcement is collections.

It is not.

Judgment enforcement is litigation. It is title work. It is timing. It is pressure. It is knowing the difference between a real defense and a delay tactic. Most importantly, it is knowing where the leverage is and how to use it.

A recent case was a perfect example.

Our client held a judgment lien tied to Florida real property. The other side tried to defend the case with arguments about recording, re-recording, later-acquired property, and a later deed transfer. On the surface, it sounded technical. Maybe even complicated.

But once we lined up the public records, the timeline told the story.

Even giving the defense the benefit of its best argument, the lien still attached when the judgment debtor later acquired the property. And once that lien attached, a later quitclaim deed did not magically make it disappear.

That was the pressure point.

We prepared a motion for summary judgment that walked through the record and dismantled the affirmative defenses one by one. Not with noise. Not with bluster. With the documents, the dates, and the law.

Then we served safe harbor notices under section 57.105, Florida Statutes.

A 57.105 safe harbor is not just an angry lawyer letter. It is a warning shot with a fee-shifting fuse attached.

Under Florida law, if a party keeps pushing a claim or defense that is not supported by the material facts or existing law, the other side can serve a sanctions motion. The motion cannot be filed immediately. The lawyer gets 21 days to withdraw or correct the problem.

That is the “safe harbor.”

But if they ignore it and lose, the consequences can get personal. The court can award attorney’s fees, and those fees are generally paid in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s lawyer.

In plain English: once the safe harbor is served, opposing counsel is no longer just defending the client’s position. Counsel is deciding whether to put their own checkbook behind it.

That is why 57.105 should not be used casually. It is not a toy. It is not something to send every time you disagree with the other side.

But when the record is locked down and the law is clear, it has teeth.

In this case, the safe harbors were not threats for the sake of threats. They were an off-ramp. They said: here is the problem, here is why your defenses do not work, here is the motion we intend to file, and here is your chance to fix it before fees become part of the case.

The case settled.

The property owner paid a substantial amount in exchange for dismissal of the case and release of the lien against the property. The funds were moved into trust. The case resolved without the court having to spend time deciding issues that should have been obvious from the recorded documents.

And here is the part I appreciated most.

Opposing counsel did not respond with bitterness. She handled it professionally, got the settlement funded, and told me she admired the approach and learned from the case.

That matters.

Because hard litigation does not require personal hostility. You can hit hard and still be professional. You can serve safe harbors and still be respected. You can make the other side uncomfortable without making it personal.

It is also why lawyers who see how we work often become some of our best referral sources. They may be across the table in one case, but they remember the difference between noise and real leverage. When they later have a judgment that needs to be enforced, they know who understands the game.

That is the difference between aggression and leverage.

Aggression is noise.

Leverage is showing the other side that their best argument still loses.

At Silver Fox Judgment Enforcement, that is what we do. We do not confuse courtesy with weakness. We do not file papers just to file papers. We find the pressure point and press it.

Sometimes that pressure point is a bank account. Sometimes it is a sheriff’s levy. Sometimes it is proceedings supplementary. Sometimes it is bankruptcy litigation. Sometimes it is a judgment lien sitting in the public records that someone else overlooked or misunderstood.

The judgment is not the finish line. It is the starting point.

A judgment sitting in a drawer is just paper. A judgment in the hands of someone who understands enforcement can become money.

That is how we roll at Silver Fox.

Because a judgment is only valuable if it is enforced.

06/10/2026

Gets AI in Legal Filings Right: The Lawyer’s Signature Still Means Something

The Florida Supreme Court got it right.

With the recent amendments to Rule 2.515, Florida has taken a common-sense approach to artificial intelligence in court filings. The rule does not require lawyers to parade their internal work product, disclose every research tool they used, or hand over proprietary prompts and workflows every time a pleading is filed. Instead, Florida focused on what actually matters:

When a lawyer signs and files something with the court, that lawyer is responsible for it.

That should not be controversial. It is the foundation of litigation.

AI is not the problem. Bad lawyering is the problem.

Artificial intelligence can generate bad citations. So can careless lawyers. AI can miss context. So can lawyers who do not understand the case, the record, or the law. AI can produce something that sounds right but is wrong. Any experienced litigator has seen plenty of human-generated pleadings that do the same thing.

The answer is not to treat every lawyer who uses technology like he or she is doing something suspicious. The answer is to enforce the rules that already matter: competence, candor, diligence, verification, and accountability.

Florida’s approach recognizes that generative AI is a tool. Nothing more. Nothing less.

In the hands of someone who does not know what they are doing, it can be dangerous. In the hands of a skilled litigator, it can be a weapon.

That distinction matters.

A carpenter with a power saw is faster than a carpenter with a hand saw. But the saw does not make him a carpenter. The same is true in litigation. AI does not make someone a good lawyer. It does not replace judgment, experience, strategy, or knowing when the other side’s argument is nonsense. But when used properly, it can dramatically improve speed, organization, issue spotting, drafting, review, and strategic planning.

That is especially true in judgment enforcement.

Judgment enforcement is not just filing a writ and hoping money appears. It is a specialized litigation practice involving public records, title, exemptions, asset transfers, bank accounts, employment, corporate entities, fraudulent transfers, proceedings supplementary, charging liens, garnishments, sheriff’s levies, bankruptcy issues, and pressure points that often do not appear on the face of the judgment.

The value is not in having a judgment. The value is in knowing how to enforce it.

At Silver Fox Judgment Enforcement, we use every available lawful tool to move faster, think deeper, and find leverage that others miss. AI tools can assist with reviewing records, comparing documents, identifying inconsistencies, organizing timelines, analyzing pleadings, stress-testing arguments, and developing enforcement strategies. That is a competitive advantage.

But the advantage is not the software.

The advantage is knowing what to ask, what matters, what is noise, what needs to be verified, and how the information fits into an actual litigation strategy. AI may help organize the battlefield. It does not fight the battle.

Every pleading still has to be reviewed. Every case cited still has to be verified. Every factual statement still has to be supported. Every enforcement step still has to be legally and tactically sound. The lawyer’s signature is not a decoration. It is a representation to the court.

That is why broad, ad hoc AI disclosure requirements never made much sense to me. A lawyer should not have to disclose internal thought processes, research methods, drafting tools, prompt structure, or proprietary workflows simply because technology assisted in the process. We do not require lawyers to disclose whether they used Westlaw, Lexis, Google, a treatise, a paralegal, a form bank, a prior motion, dictation software, or a legal pad.

The question is not what tool was used.

The question is whether the filing is accurate, supported, and filed in good faith.

Florida’s rule puts the burden exactly where it belongs: on the signer.

That is the right approach. It protects the court system from fabricated authorities and sloppy filings without punishing lawyers who responsibly use modern tools to improve their work. It encourages innovation while preserving accountability.

For judgment creditors, that matters.

A dormant judgment does not collect itself. A debtor who has spent years avoiding payment is not suddenly going to volunteer assets because someone filed a generic motion. Judgment enforcement requires speed, creativity, pressure, and precision. Used correctly, AI helps sharpen each of those. It allows a skilled lawyer to process more information, identify more angles, and move with greater efficiency.

But it still takes the lawyer.

It still takes judgment.

It still takes experience.

And it still takes someone willing to sign their name to the work.

That is why Florida got it right. Our signatures mean something. They always have. AI does not change that. It just raises the stakes for lawyers who use powerful tools without the skill, discipline, or ethics to control them.

At Silver Fox Judgment Enforcement, we embrace technology because we know how to use it. But the strategy, the accountability, and the signature remain ours.

A judgment has no value until it is enforced.

Responding to the growing use — and misuse — of generative artificial intelligence in court filings, the Florida Supreme Court has amended statewide court rules to require attorneys and self-represented litigants to certify that legal authorities cited in filings are accurate. The amended rules,...

06/06/2026

Celebrating Lucy's 15 year anniversary with our Firm. Imagine what a saint she must be to put up with me for that long!

05/11/2026

It’s official: Silver Fox Judgment Enforcement is live.

Silver Fox is part of M.A. Dinkin Law Firm, PLLC, built on decades of litigation experience and focused on one thing:

**Turning judgments into recoveries.**

A judgment is not the finish line. It is leverage — but only if it is enforced with skill, persistence, and pressure.

Silver Fox Judgment Enforcement represents judgment creditors in Florida who are ready to move beyond paper victories and pursue real collection strategies, including garnishments, sheriff’s levies, judgment lien foreclosures, post-judgment discovery, and bankruptcy-related enforcement issues.

https://www.silverfoxjudgmentenforcement.com/

The tagline says it best:

Judgments have no value until they are enforced.

Take a look, share it, and keep Silver Fox in mind when a judgment needs to be enforced, not just "collected".

05/07/2026

A few weeks ago, I wrote that asset protection plans often look impressive until they get punched in the mouth.

Here is the follow-up point: the punch is not always the lawsuit. Sometimes the real punch comes after judgment.

A judgment debtor may believe they are protected because they paid good money for a plan, moved money into the “right” accounts, titled assets carefully, used family members, relied on exemptions, or created a paper trail that looks clean at first glance.

But post-judgment enforcement is where theory meets pressure.

Bank accounts can be frozen. Paychecks can be disrupted. Financial institutions may stop providing easy access to information while they respond to legal process. Closing files, retirement withdrawals, annuity funding sources, family transfers, credit applications, and years of financial records can all become fair game for review.

That kind of enforcement can turn someone’s financial life inside out very quickly.

Bills still come due. Mortgage payments still have to be made. Daily banking becomes complicated. Money that once moved freely between accounts, family members, and financial products suddenly has to be explained, documented, and defended.

This is where experience matters.

Asset protection documents may be drafted in a conference room. But they are tested in subpoenas, garnishments, depositions, hearings, and financial records. They are tested by someone who knows how judgment debtors move money, how exemption claims are made, how transfers are hidden in plain sight, and how to apply pressure without losing focus.

That is the work I do.

I do not just hold a judgment and hope someone pays it. I enforce it. I follow the money. I look for the pressure points. I turn incomplete answers into leverage. And I force asset protection plans to survive the real world.

I am not against lawful asset planning. People are entitled to structure their affairs within the law.

But there is a major difference between lawful planning and believing that a set of documents, account titles, exemptions, or transfers will magically end a creditor’s pursuit.

Because at the end of the day, judgments have no value until they are enforced.

They are enforced through pressure, persistence, and knowing how to follow the money.

04/22/2026

Mike Tyson said, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

The same is true for many asset protection plans. They may look good on paper, but paper is one thing and litigation is another.

Over the past month, I achieved very favorable settlements for judgment creditors against debtors who believed their asset protection planning would withstand serious collection pressure. It did not.

In my experience, many of these structures are designed without ever being pressure-tested in actual litigation. When they finally are, the gap between theory and reality can create substantial leverage.

Judgments are only valuable if they are enforced.

04/21/2026

A judgment is only the beginning. Enforcement is what creates value.