Jane W. Moscowitz

Attorney in Miami, FL
Partner: Moscowitz & Moscowitz, P.A.; Partner: Moscowitz, Moscowitz & Magolnick, 2000-2006; Jane Wollner Moscowitz, P.A.; Baker & Moscowitz, 1992-1995; Steel Hector & Davis, 1987-1992. Senior Litigation Counsel by the Appointment of the U.S. Attorney General, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, 1985-1987. Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, 1982-1987. Assistant United States Attorney, District of Maryland, 1989-1982. Trial Attorney, Department of Justice, 1978-1979. Author: Compliance Plans for Small Organizations, The Practical Litigator, 2002; Basics of Federal Criminal Investigations: Grand Jury, Immunity, Joint Defense Agreements, Health Care Fraud, 2002; Web-Based Criminal Jurisdiction, ABA White Collar Crime, 1999; Finding Ways to Obtain a Reduction in Sentence, with Norman A. Moscowitz, Business Crimes Bulletin, September 1996; Innocent Third Parties in Federal Forfeiture Proceedings, with M. Zeldin, Criminal Justice Magazine, Spring 1993; Lenders' Litigation strategies in Federal Forfeiture Actions, with W. Adams, The Practical Litigator, Sept. 1992; The Forfeiture Defense: Strategies for Summary Judgment and Trial, with W. Adams, The Practical Litigator, November 1992; Editor: Florida Evidence, American Inns of Court Civil Procedure Series. Program Faculty: Federal Bench and Bar Conference for Southern District of Florida, Sentencing Panel, April, 2012; American Bar Association, White Collar Crime Institute, Collecting Evidence Abroad, March, 2012; Association for Professional Responsibility Lawyers, Ethics for Criminal Defense Lawyers, February, 2012; Florida Bar Advanced Criminal Law Seminar, Daubert Issues, Confrontation and Agent Testimony, January, 2012; NACDL: Stetson University College of Law, White Collar College, March, 2012; American Bar Association, White Collar Crime Institute, Sentencing Update, March, 2007-2011; Florida Bar Advanced Criminal Law Course, Federal Sentencing Update, March, 2010; NACDL: Ethical Dilemmas in the Attorney Client Relationship at NACDL's 29th Annual Advanced Criminal Law Seminar, January 2009. NACDL: Getting Paid, Not Charged, at NACDL's 5th Annual Defending the White Collar Case Seminar, October 2009. ABA Annual White Collar Crime Conference: Ethical Issues in White Collar Cases, March 2009; Sentencing Update, March, 2008; Sentencing for Individuals: Advocacy is Back, March 2007; E-Discovery, March 2006; Steering Committee, ABA/University of Miami Criminal Justice Ethics Symposium, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007. Florida Bar, Basic Criminal Law, 2007-2008. Southern District of Florida Federal Court Committees: Grievance Committee, Bench and Bar Conference Committee. Listed: 2011-2013 Best Law Firms U.S. News & World Report - First Tier Rankings Criminal Defense; Best Lawyers in America, 1995-2013; Top Lawyers and Law Firms in South Florida, 2004-2012; Florida Trend's Florida Legal Elite Section, 2004-2012; Florida Trend: The State's Legal Leaders Named by Their Peers, 2010; South Florida Legal Guide, Top Lawyers in South Florida, 2004-2013; Chambers USA America's Leading Lawyers for Business, 2004-2012, The Client's Guide; The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers, Business Crimes Defence, 2005-2013; Florida Super Lawyers, 2006-2012; Florida Super Lawyers, Top 100 Lawyers Miami, 2011; Florida Super Lawyers, Top 50 Women Lawyers, 2007-2012. Honors: Liberty and Justice for All Award, Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, 2001; Department of Justice John Marshall Award for Outstanding Legal Achievement, 1986. Pro Bono Activities: Foster Care Review; Miami-Dade County School Board Ethics Advisory Committee, 2002-2010 (Chair, 2007-2008); Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center; Women's Fund of Miami-Dade; Hands-On Miami Food and Books Drives; Casa Valentina Visionary. Teaching: Adjunct Professor, University of Miami Trial Advocacy Program, 1988-1989, 1992.
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Complex Criminal and Related Civil Litigation
  • White Collar Crime
  • Commercial Litigation


Peer Rating


Overall Peer Rating

5.0 out of 5.0
  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.

Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 1977, District of Columbia
1978, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland
1979, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
1982, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
1986, Florida
1987, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
1999, U.S. Supreme Court

Law School Attended

Harvard University Law School
Class of 1977

University Attended

University of Houston
Class of 1968
B.B.A., Accounting
magna cum laude

Rutgers University
Class of 1973
M.S., Computer Science

Birth Information

Born in 1946
Chicago, Illinois, October 28, 1946


Spanish and Hebrew

Associations & Memberships

The Florida Bar; Federal and American (Member: White Collar Crime Committee; Planning Committee, White Collar Crime Conference) Bar Associations; Dade County Bar Association; National Associa... More

Bar Fellowship

American College of Trial Lawyers; International Academy of Trial Lawyers; American Bar; Litigation Counsel of America.

Representative Cases

Belize Telecom Ltd. v. Government of Belize, 528 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2008); Feliu v. Fernandez Rundle, 2007 US Dist Lexis 36217 (SD Fla 2007); Belize Telecom Ltd. v. Government of Belize, 2005 US Dist Lexis 18586 (SD Fla 2005); Fulton County Administration v. Blank, 141 Fed. Appx 892 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Greenpeace, 314 F. Supp. 2d 1... More

Contact Information






Send email to Jane W. Moscowitz

Office Information
Jane W. Moscowitz
Sabadell Financial Center 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2050,
Miami, FL 33131-3112


Moscowitz & Moscowitz, P.A. (Miami, Florida)

About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.


Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.