Florida Defamation Lawsuit Filed Against Israeli Attorney Asaf Didi Dok Over Publications Concerning Roy Miller
By Attorney Tomer Israel
A defamation lawsuit is pending in Florida against Israeli criminal-defense attorney Asaf Didi Dok, arising from articles published on Dok’s law-firm website concerning Florida resident Roy Miller, formerly known as Avi Roy Dubitzky.
According to the complaint, Miller alleges that Dok published statements accusing him of fabricating evidence, forging documents, and framing or falsely incriminating individuals in connection with criminal investigations in Israel. The lawsuit contends that these statements were presented as established facts rather than as allegations attributed to Dok’s client.
The complaint specifically challenges language stating or implying that Israeli police and prosecutorial authorities had concluded that Miller fabricated evidence or forged documents. Miller alleges that the official prosecutorial disposition relied upon in Dok’s publication did not make such findings and instead reflected that the underlying criminal file had been closed for insufficient evidence.
Allegations of Fabrication, Forgery and “Framing”
At the center of the lawsuit is a 2026 publication concerning the disposition of a criminal matter involving one of Dok’s clients.
Miller alleges that the article falsely represented that he had fabricated evidence, forged documents and engaged in conduct designed to falsely incriminate Dok’s client. The complaint further alleges that Dok used language suggesting that these conclusions had already been established by Israeli law-enforcement authorities.
Miller denies those accusations.
The complaint states that no adjudication in the criminal matter determined that Miller framed Dok’s client, forged evidence or fabricated evidence. According to Miller, the distinction is significant because the official closing document did not accuse him of criminal wrongdoing.
The lawsuit alleges that Dok, an attorney experienced in criminal law, understood the difference between the closure of a criminal investigation for insufficient evidence and an affirmative governmental finding that another person had committed forgery, fabrication or framing.
Florida Is a Central Part of the Dispute
The complaint alleges that the publications were accessible in Florida and were in fact read by third parties in Florida.
Miller alleges that the articles damaged his reputation in the state and that at least one Florida resident contacted him after reading the material and sought explanations concerning its contents. The complaint characterizes the alleged reputational injury in Florida as an actual consequence of Dok’s online publication, rather than merely a theoretical possibility.
The pre-suit correspondence attached to the complaint similarly states that Miller is a Florida resident and alleges that Florida residents had accessed the publications and brought them to his attention.
Pre-Suit Demand for Retraction
Before filing the lawsuit, Miller sent Dok a written pre-suit notice under Florida’s defamation statute.
According to the complaint, the notice was transmitted on August 27, 2026, by email and fax to Dok’s law firm. Miller alleges that the notice identified the publication and the statements he considered false and defamatory and gave Dok an opportunity to correct or retract the challenged material.
The attached pre-suit letter demanded removal, correction and retraction of statements concerning Miller and also demanded preservation of evidence relating to the publications, including prior versions, publication and modification timestamps, website records, analytics and dissemination information.
Publications Remain at Issue
The lawsuit concerns not merely criticism or disagreement over Dok’s representation of a client, but the manner in which specific assertions about Miller were allegedly presented to readers.
Miller’s position, as stated in the complaint, is that Dok crossed the line from reporting his client’s allegations into representing disputed accusations as historical or officially established facts.
The complaint alleges that statements accusing Miller of evidence fabrication, document forgery and framing another person are capable of being proven true or false and therefore constitute factual assertions rather than protected expressions of opinion.
Miller further alleges that those accusations impute serious criminal and dishonest conduct and constitute defamation per se under Florida law.
The Case Is Pending
The allegations in Miller’s complaint have not been adjudicated, and the filing of a lawsuit does not establish that Dok is liable for defamation.
Dok is entitled to contest the allegations, assert applicable defenses and present his own evidence and legal arguments before the court.
The case is therefore significant not because liability has already been determined, but because it places before a Florida court a direct dispute over whether an attorney publishing material about a former adversary may characterize disputed accusations as established governmental findings when, according to the plaintiff, the underlying official records say something materially different.
The court will ultimately determine whether the challenged publications are actionable under Florida law and what, if any, relief is appropriate.
