Following the Paper Trail: Where Public Records Led When Two Lawyers Had to Be Served
Commentary by Tomer Israel, Attorney
Disclosure: The author is an attorney who has represented Roy Miller in proceedings in Israel. Miller is the plaintiff in the Florida case described below and filed a Florida Bar complaint about one of the lawyers.
where is daniel saltzman really?
The author reviewed the court order, sworn returns, and public records directly.
In 2025, Roy Miller sued two Florida lawyers in Miami-Dade County and tried to serve them. A court order and sworn statements from process servers show where the public-records trail led.
The official address. Florida’s corporate registry lists a private mailbox at a UPS Store in Sunrise as the principal, mailing, and registered-agent address of attorney Shlomo Nizahon’s law firm. The registered-agent change was filed May 1, 2023, and the principal address was changed April 15, 2024. Annual reports followed in 2023, 2024, and 2025, and the registry still lists that address. Nizahon’s Florida Bar profile shows the same mailbox as his mail address. Attorney Daniel Saltzman’s 2024 and 2025 court filings use it as well. Miller says he served both lawyers there in September 2025.
The voter file. A Broward County Supervisor of Elections record printed December 5, 2025 showed a residence entry unchanged since a March 2016 update. It also showed a separate mailing address, labeled a private mailbox, added in January 2025. The record remains the same today.
What the servers found. Two process servers gave sworn statements about attempts in December 2025. One, seeking Nizahon, reported that occupants of a Broward County condominium said they did not know him and that he did not live there, and that a neighbor said the same. The other, seeking Saltzman, reported three attempts over two weeks at a single address, with no answer and no contact.
The ruling. On November 26, 2025, Nizahon and Saltzman moved to quash service. They argued that, as registered voters with active driver’s licenses, public records would not have led only to a mailbox. On December 16, Judge William Thomas granted the motion, voided a clerk’s default and a default final judgment, and found that “proper and diligent public-records searches would have revealed residential addresses for both Defendants.” According to the lawyers’ motion, an earlier order in the case stated that there was no evidence at that time that they were evading service. The court reserved the lawyers’ request for attorney’s fees. The case has since ended.
In an October 2025 email, Saltzman told Miller the lawyers would not provide home addresses.
What the record shows. The lawyers’ position, which the court accepted, is that public records would lead to their homes. The process servers’ sworn statements report that the addresses they found did not turn up either lawyer. Both can be true, and the gap illustrates the practical problem for a plaintiff. It does not show that anyone concealed anything, and the court made no such finding.
The policy question. The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar require each member to designate a mailing address, and a workplace address if the mailing address is not one. No rule requires an address where a summons will be accepted. A plaintiff without a lawyer can follow every public lead and still end up with defective service. Florida could close that gap by requiring every lawyer to designate an address or agent where original process will be accepted. A mailbox alone would not satisfy that requirement.
