Keith R. Mitnik

Attorney in Orlando, FL

Keith R. Mitnik was born in Eustis, Florida in 1959. He graduated from Eustis High School in 1977. He graduated from UCF Magna Cum Laude in 1981 with a degree in Allied Legal Services. He graduated from FSU Law School with honors 1984. Upon graduation he was selected to train under one of the premier Trial Attorneys in Central Florida. Within two years he was named a partner by his mentor. He remained in the firm of Robertson, Williams, Mitnik and McDonald until 1992, when he formed The Law Firm of Peed and Mitnik. In 1997 he joined the Law Firm of Morgan & Morgan and is now one of the owners.

He is a Senior Trial member, designated to assist other members of the firm on their trials to assure a potent one-two punch. He also handles his own select cases.

Over the years his list of clients include judges, elected officials, law firms, world famous musicians, and legendary sports figures from The Harlem Globetrotters. He has tried cases with and for Johnny Cochran. He has been honored as a member of the Florida Legal Elite and one of the area's top attorneys by the Orlando Business Journal. He is recognized as one of Florida's "Super Lawyers" by Florida Trend magazine, Orlando's Best Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America, and A.V. Rated by Martindale Hubbell, the highest rating available for legal ability and ethical standards and listed in their Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers. He has handled many high profile cases and has been interviewed by Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes. He is routinely invited to lecture around the state at seminars for other trial attorneys.

Mr. Mitnik is a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum and has obtained many verdicts in excess of a million dollars. In the last few years, he has obtained jury verdicts of $1 Million, $1.35 Million, $2.4 Million, $2.7 Million, and $5.1 Million dollars. Mr. Mitnik obtained a $90 million dollar damages verdict against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in 2010. Two national legal publications ranked the verdict as one of the top ten verdicts of the year in the United States.

Mr. Mitnik started 2011 with an $18.8 million jury verdict. Then, in May 2011, he went to trial in a tobacco case against Philip Morris USA and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. His client was the surviving husband of a woman who died from complications of COPD caused by cigarette smoking. After 3 and 1/2 weeks of trial, the jury returned a verdict of 40 million dollars against the cigarette manufacturers.

Member of :

· The Florida Bar

· The Tennessee Bar

· Florida Justice Association

· Middle District of Florida Federal Court

· Northern District of Florida Federal Court

· Federal Court of Claim - D.C.

· 11th Circuit Court Appeals - Federal

· Million Dollar Advocates Forum

· Florida Legal Elite

· Florida's Super Lawyers

· Orlando's Best Lawyers

· Best Lawyers in America

Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Medical Malpractice
  • Personal Injury
  • Civil Rights / Defamation
  • 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 1984, Florida, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida and U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia and Eleventh Circuits
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida

Law School Attended

Florida State University Law School
Class of 1984
with honors

University Attended

University of Central Florida
Class of 1981
magna cum laude

Birth Information

Born in 1959
Eustis, Florida, February 14, 1959

Office Information
Keith R. Mitnik
 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600, P.O. Box 4979,
Orlando, FL 32802-4979


Morgan & Morgan (Orlando, 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.