A family law judge ordered that a father was permitted to enroll himself and his two teenage children in “a week-long program such as Family Bridges.” Purporting to merely “implement” this order, father asked the court to order the children to attend Family Bridges, which
Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s ongoing divorce proceeding has been handled by a party-compensated private judge sitting as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge. Such judges have an ongoing obligation to disclose new paid engagements with counsel representing either side. After several rounds of such
Representing the husband in a post-dissolution family law proceeding, GMSR prevailed on wife’s appeal from the superior court’s order denying her motion to set aside their marital settlement agreement. Wife and her counsel had prepared and presented to then-unrepresented husband all preliminary disclosures and the
In a marital dissolution action, the husband argued that the wife’s shares in a corporation she co-owned with her father were community property because the wife, GMSR’s client, acquired them during marriage and a corporate document stated that she had provided half of the consideration
After nearly three decades of marriage, husband (GMSR’s client) obtained dissolution. Wife, a former successful international banking and finance lawyer at a major law firm, claimed that during the marriage, husband, also a successful lawyer, hid marital assets worth millions of dollars. After a lengthy
Reyes v. Reyes (2015) 2015 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8122 (Calfornia Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One) [unpublished]. In this marital dissolution proceeding, the parties stipulated to having a temporary judge (a retired judge appointed under Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21) issue a
In re Marriage of Ziman (2015) 2015 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7388 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One ) [unpublished]. Husband, GMSR’s client, entered the marriage with $16 million in separate property investments. The couple spent the first six years of the marriage
In re Marriage of Jones (2014) 2014 Cal.App. Unpub LEXIS 138 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. Wife petitioned to dissolve her marriage to husband, GMSR’s client. Husband wanted to remarry, but the dissolution proceedings bogged down in disputes over financial
In re Marriage of Armour/Ritter (2010) 2010 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 6108 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) [unpublished]. A wife in a marital dissolution proceeding incurred almost $700,000 in attorney’s fees litigating whether the confidential documents of her husband’s employer, which the spouses
Said v. Jegan (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1375 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8 (Los Angeles)) [published]. Robin Meadow secured this reversal despite an earlier published case that seemed directly contrary. When GMSR’s client discovered that his former wife had placed his name on
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.
As part of GMSR’s long-standing commitment to social justice and equality, GMSR provides pro bono appellate services to individuals and to community organizations on issues of concern.
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.