Overview
Gabe leads the firm’s appellate practice. He handles appeals in federal and state courts for Dovel & Luner’s own cases and cases litigated by other firms. He also briefs and argues complex legal issues in the trial courts.
Gabe has extensive experience in appellate law. He has argued cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Washington Supreme Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the New York Appellate Division, as well as many federal and state trial courts.
Gabe joined Dovel & Luner after graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he served as Articles Co-Chair for the Harvard Law Review. He spent two years at the firm before leaving to clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where he gained valuable insights into appellate review, and returned to the firm after his clerkship.
When he is not thinking about the law, Gabe enjoys playing ultimate frisbee, hiking, snowboarding, playing board games, and traveling.
Education
- Harvard Law School, (J.D., magna cum laude, 2020)
- Middlebury College, (B.A., summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 2017)
Prior Associations
- Law Clerk to Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Notable Cases
Reviving valuable claims on appeal. Gabe overturned summary judgment on a multimillion-dollar quantum meruit claim in the Fourth Circuit. His client had performed thirteen years of valuable services for a business on the understanding that he was a partner, but without a signed written contract. After the district court granted summary judgment for the other side, Gabe joined the case to appeal that decision. He persuaded the appellate court to hold (unanimously) that the district erred in dismissing the quantum meruit claim. As a result, Gabe’s client could continue to seek compensation for services that otherwise would have remained unpaid.
Winning complex legal issues. In the D.C. Circuit, Gabe briefed and argued a case on behalf of parishioners who were misled about how their donations would be used. They believed their money was going to help those most in need around the world. In reality, the church invested it in things like luxury real estate and Hollywood films. The district court denied the church’s motion to dismiss and the church appealed, raising constitutional and jurisdictional questions that had divided judges in other circuits. The appellate court unanimously agreed with Gabe’s argument that the First Amendment does not provide churches an immunity from suit warranting immediate appeal from non-final orders. It therefore dismissed the church’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Expanding protections for consumers. In the Washington Supreme Court, Gabe briefed and argued a case on behalf of consumers who had been deceived by Walgreens’ “Non-Drowsy” label on cough medicine that can, in fact, cause drowsiness. At issue was the scope of the Washington Consumer Protection Act’s exemption for conduct regulated by agencies like the FDA. The court agreed with Gabe’s argument that the exemption applies only when the particular conduct is specifically and actively permitted by the regulating agency. In so holding, the court corrected some statements in prior case law that suggested the exemption was broader. This was an important win for consumers—not only the consumers in the case, but also consumers in future cases who will be able to benefit from the statute’s broad protections. Law360 published an article about the decision.
Personal Facts
- Gabe grew up in an off-the-grid, solar-powered house in the middle of the woods in Maine.
- Gabe is an avid ultimate frisbee player.
- Gabe has summited Mt. Ngauruhoe (popularly known as Mt. Doom from the Lord of the Rings trilogy), an active volcano in New Zealand.
Joining Dovel & Luner
I first saw the name Dovel & Luner in an email my 1L summer. It promised an alternative to Biglaw where I could run my own cases and be a litigator rather than a document reviewer. It placed an emphasis on lawyer development rather than hours billed. And it had a nice picture of the beach.
At my Biglaw interviews, I scrounged for minute differences between nearly indistinguishable firms. For my Dovel & Luner interview, I prepared a cross-examination.
I split my 2L summer between Dovel & Luner and a Biglaw firm. At both firms, I worked with smart, skilled, and kind lawyers. At both firms, I made meaningful contributions to the cases I worked on. But as I looked one, two, three, four, five years into the future, I could spot the differences. In Biglaw, it was unlikely I would argue a motion in my first two years, let alone my first two months. I would spend years climbing the ladder until I could finally stand up in court, whereas at Dovel & Luner the ladder was more like a stepping stool. I couldn’t wait to get started.