In conjunction with our litigation practice, we provide our clients with representation in both state and federal appellate courts.  Our litigation team handles civil appellate and writ practice in all California and federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, in cases where we were involved in the trial and also where we were first brought into the case at the appellate level.

Representative Cases

The following published opinions show the breadth of experience our appellate attorneys have.

In Forrest v. Baeza, we represented one of three owners of a closely held family corporation.  Disputes arose between the owners and lawsuits were filed that eventually led to a buy-out of one of the owners.  During the course of the litigation, an attorney undertook to represent both the corporation and two of the three owners.  We brought a motion in the trial court to disqualify the attorney and appealed the ruling of the trial court that partially granted our motion.  The published opinion on appeal established new standards in an attorney's ability to represent multiple clients with conflicting interests as well as the ability of clients to waive those conflicts.

In Estate of Swetmann, we represented the executor and principal beneficiary of a probate estate.  At the time the testator's will was executed, the beneficiary was also acting as conservator for his long-time friend and neighbor.  The trial court found that the beneficiary was disqualified under California Probate Code §§ 21350 and 21351 and could not take under the will.  On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the beneficiary was not disqualifed and reversed the judgment of the trial court with directions to enter a judgment that distributed the estate in accordance with the terms of the will.

Black v. Financial Freedom was a class action in which we represented a class of California senior citizens who had entered into reverse mortgages, the terms of which they felt were onerous and confusing.  At trial, summary judgment was granted to the defendants on the grounds that the plaintiffs' claims were preempted by federal banking laws.  The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the claims were not preempted.  The defendants unsuccessfully sought review in the California Supreme Court and unsuccessfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case.  The case was eventually settled with the defendants agreeing to substantially lower the interest due under the reverse mortgages.