I specialize in labor and employment litigation with a particular emphasis on writs and appeals. My typical clients are either public employees who have faced an adverse employment decision as a result of discipline, retaliation or discrimination; and public employee unions facing labor issues with their public employer.
I’m sort of a law geek: I love learning, thinking about, discussing and arguing the law. Arguing in court is actually pretty thrilling to me, even more so when I win. There’s nothing like telling a client they’re going back to work. I also litigate in the federal and state courts of appeal, and am certified by the California State Bar as an appellate specialist. Appellate law is particularly gratifying because as an attorney, I get to be a part of shaping the law through case decisions, and if I can do it through reversing a bad trial court decision, that’s even better. Here is a link to a list of published appellate cases I either briefed and argued, or just briefed.
I also try to be straightforward with clients. I won’t tell you you have a great case if you don’t, and you’re unlikely to ever hear me say you have a slam dunk. If you did, you probably wouldn’t need an attorney in the first place. And even a great case can fall into the hands of a judge or jury who renders a bad decision. It happens.
I do my best to make sure client expectations are realistic, and I will tell you the strengths and weaknesses in your case as I see them. Every case has a mixture of both and it’s the attorney’s job to recognize and deal with them. I should warn you that when we first meet about your case and you enthusiastically tell me your story and why you think you have a good case, I will be skeptical. It’s not you, it’s me: I have to be skeptical. The only way I can generate the same level of enthusiasm about your case is to get there on my own through analysis of the good and bad facts, and the relevant law.