GMSR has successfully represented lawyers, accountants, trustees, and other professionals accused of a wide range of malfeasance, and we are intimately familiar the ins and outs of appeals from anti-SLAPP proceedings.
O’Gara Coach Company, LLC v. Ra (Jan. 7, 2019, B286730) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2019 WL 117220]
Before he became an attorney, the principal attorney in the law firm now representing a former employee against his employer was the employer’s president and chief operating officer. He supervised outside attorneys conducting an investigation of the conduct that led to the employee’s dismissal. The
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Aug. 30, 2018, S232946) ___ Cal.5th___ [2018 WL 4137013]
A large law firm, Sheppard Mullin, had for many years provided employment advice to a client on a recurring, as-needed basis. Sheppard Mullin then undertook the defense of a new client, J-M Manufacturing Co., in a suit brought by the longtime client. Although a conflict
GMSR obtains reversal of summary judgment against its client
Michelson v. Proskauer Rose, LLP, 2016 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 4701. GMSR’s client sued a law firm for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice, based upon the firm’s issuance of opinion letters regarding purportedly tax-advantaged investments that the Internal Revenue Service later determined were
Michelson v. Proskauer Rose, LLP (June 24, 2016, B259013) [2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4701]
GMSR’s client sued a law firm for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice, based upon the firm’s issuance of opinion letters regarding purportedly tax-advantaged investments that the Internal Revenue Service later determined were illegal. GMSR’s client asserted the attorney-client privilege as to his
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 590
Court of Appeal reversed a $1.7 million judgment against GMSR’s client J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc.
In a published opinion, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 4 reversed a $1.7 million judgment against GMSR’s client J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 590 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four) [published]. In a unanimous published opinion reversing the $1.7 million judgment against GMSR’s client J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc., the Second District
Cruz-Carbajal v. Holder (9th Cir. 2011) 428 Fed.Appx. 759
Teaming up as pro bono counsel, husband and wife team Alana Rotter of GMSR and Jonathan Rotter of Kaye Scholer LLP argued that the Board of Immigration Appeals erroneously denied a motion for relief based on ineffective assistance of former counsel. The Ninth Circuit agreed,
Court of Appeal affirms defense judgment in legal malpractice case
The Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment in favor of GMSR’s client, a law firm sued for legal malpractice, including the award of almost $1 million in unpaid legal fees on the law firm’s cross-complaint. Plaintiff had not testified at trial about a key set
Court of Appeal affirms judgment in favor of GMSR’s clients in legal malpractice action
Lockton v. O’Rourke (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1051 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four) [published]. A sophisticated businessman hired GMSR’s clients to bring suit against various individuals and entities that he claimed had fraudulently settled litigation arising out of his ouster from a
Lockton v. O’Rourke (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1051
Standard for determining continuous representation on same specific subject matter for purposes of tolling statute of limitations in attorney malpractice action
Browse By Practice Area
Who We Serve
Whether on appeal, assisting trial counsel, or advising government officials contemplating legislative action, GMSR provides unique insight into the complex laws that impact public entities.
Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.
GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.
The firm’s lawyers are team players, collaborating with trial counsel at any level from legal strategy to writing or editing trial court motions and appellate briefs.
GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.
© 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.