VCARDBiography
Few appellate specialists have successfully tried a jury case. Robin Meadow tried jury cases for over 20 years at a major commercial firm, while also handling appeals, in many fields of law. Over time, he realized that it’s nearly impossible to excel at both trials and appeals, because the skill sets and practice rhythms differ completely and often clash. Concluding that his greatest strengths lay in appellate work, Robin joined GMSR in 1994, handling his last trial late that year.
Robin’s trial-court experience gives him a unique perspective on appellate work. He understands the demands and pressures trial lawyers face and the many ways that things can go wrong in the trial court. And he is very much at home consulting with trial lawyers during trial, helping them protect their appellate record so they’re well positioned to either preserve a victory or overturn a defeat.
Robin’s practice at GMSR continues the substantive focus he developed in his earlier years—business disputes, real estate, partnerships, and probate and entertainment law. But, like most appellate lawyers, he is a generalist and at GMSR has also handled multiple significant appeals involving healthcare, family law, personal injury and bankruptcy.
He is also an expert in technology for appellate lawyers and courts. A pioneer in the use of electronic records and briefs, Robin co-authored the California Second District Court of Appeal’s first protocol for electronic briefs (since adopted by other California Courts of Appeal), and he filed the first electronic brief ever accepted by a California appellate court.
When he isn’t practicing law, he enjoys spending time with his family, reading about history and playing bass guitar in a rock band.
Honors
A California Lawyer of the Year, California Lawyer Magazine (2016)
Los Angeles County Bar Association Pamela E. Dunn Appellate Justice Award (2014)
Best Lawyers’ 2013 and 2018 Los Angeles Appellate Practice “Lawyer of the Year”
Southern California Super Lawyers (Appellate) (2004 – present)
Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers (2006, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016)
Named in The Best Lawyers in America (Appellate Law) (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)
Named in Chambers and Partners USA (chambersandpartners.com) as a Band 1 Appellate Litigator
A California Lawyer of the Year, California Lawyer Magazine (2016)
Los Angeles County Bar Association Pamela E. Dunn Appellate Justice Award (2014)
Best Lawyers’ 2013 and 2018 Los Angeles Appellate Practice “Lawyer of the Year”
Southern California Super Lawyers (Appellate) (2004 – present)
Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers (2006, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016)
Named in The Best Lawyers in America (Appellate Law) (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)
Named in Chambers and Partners USA (chambersandpartners.com) as a Band 1 Appellate Litigator
High Impact Wins
Himelsein Mandel Fund Management, LLC et al. v. Fortress Investment Group, LLC et al. (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 28, 2019, No. B281210) 2019 WL 1395963.
Court of Appeal reverses denial of jury trial, refusing to apply New York law
Himelsein Mandel Fund Management, LLC et al. v. Fortress Investment Group, LLC et al. (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 28, 2019, No. B281210) 2019 WL 1395963.
Court of Appeal reverses denial of jury trial, refusing to apply New York law
GMSR’s clients sued their lender for destroying their business by reneging on a promise to provide additional funding. The lender cross-complained for an alleged $113 million deficiency following foreclosure on the security for its loans. The trial court rejected the clients’ demand for a jury. The principal issue on appeal was whether the trial court had erred in denying a jury trial and, if so, what the relief should be. The court accepted GMSR’s arguments that California law governed the jury waiver- because New York’s more permissive law was contrary to fundamental California policy. It also agreed that denial of a jury trial was a structural error and therefore reversible per se as to all of the clients’ claims, even equitable issues as to which they had no right to a jury.
In re Estate of Duke (2015) 61 Cal.4th 871
California Supreme Court allows reformation of wills, overturning centuries of precedent.
In re Estate of Duke (2015) 61 Cal.4th 871
California Supreme Court allows reformation of wills, overturning centuries of precedent.
Mr. Meadow was lead counsel of a team that persuaded the California Supreme Court to allow reformation of wills based on extrinsic evidence—overturning a principle of will interpretation that dated back nearly 500 years to the first Act of Wills. In doing so, the Court aligned California with modern academic and judicial thinking on how best to determine testators’ intent.
Sheridan v. Touchstone Television Productions, LLC (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 508
Employees of private companies urging retaliation claims need not exhaust administrative remedies before suing
Sheridan v. Touchstone Television Productions, LLC (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 508
Employees of private companies urging retaliation claims need not exhaust administrative remedies before suing
Holding that a new statute covered cases filed before it was enacted, the Court of Appeal held that Labor Code section 98.7 does not require an employee to exhaust that statute’s administrative remedies before filing suit on a claim for retaliation against a private employer.
Novak v. Fay (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 329
Court establishes procedure for enforcing attorney liens against decedents’ estates
Novak v. Fay (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 329
Court establishes procedure for enforcing attorney liens against decedents’ estates
In this first-impression case, the Court of Appeal harmonized some apparently conflicting laws and ruled that the holder of an attorney lien need not file a creditor’s claim in the probate estate of the deceased client.
Wilson v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123
Court articulates new criteria for evaluating whether a defendant’s conduct creates a nuisance
Wilson v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123
Court articulates new criteria for evaluating whether a defendant’s conduct creates a nuisance
Mr. Meadow was lead counsel of a team that persuaded the Court of Appeal that existing CACI nuisance instructions did not adequately express the factors that Supreme Court precedent required juries to consider. The court articulated new criteria that have since been embodied in a CACI jury instructions.
Celador Internat., Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. (9th Cir. 2012) 499 Fed.Appx. 721
$300 Million “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” Verdict Against Disney Affirmed
Celador Internat., Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. (9th Cir. 2012) 499 Fed.Appx. 721
$300 Million “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” Verdict Against Disney Affirmed
Mr. Meadow was lead counsel of a team that obtained affirmance of $320 million contract judgment against Disney arising out of Disney’s refusal to pay profits owed on the wildly successful “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” program.
Ginsberg v. Gamson (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 873
Court rejects claim that a lease allowed perpetual renewals
Ginsberg v. Gamson (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 873
Court rejects claim that a lease allowed perpetual renewals
Reviewing case law from throughout the United States, the Court of Appeal concluded that the law disfavors perpetual leases; that perpetual rights must be explicitly stated; and that a renewal clause that is ambiguous as to the number of renewals confers only a single right of renewal.
Publications
Speaking and Involvement
Professional Associations
© 2019 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Los Angeles
5900 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th floor
Los Angeles, CA 90036
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
San Francisco
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.