| Noteworthy Cases as Litigation Counsel - Special counsel to RAND Corporation, Dr. Henry Rowen (former president of RAND) and the late Dr. Richard Moorsteen in connection with the federal criminal prosecution of Dr. Daniel Ellsberg for unauthorized copying of the “Pentagon Papers.” United States v. Ellsberg and Russo (C.D. Cal., Hon. Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr., United States District Judge). (1973).
- Examiner (prosecutor) for The State Bar of California in Jacoby v. State Bar, 19 Cal.3d 359 (1977), the California constitutional test case on regulation of lawyer advertising and solicitation which involved the Legal Clinic of Jacoby & Meyers. Lead counsel at the 20-day hearing and in the Review Department appeal, and of counsel to The State Bar's general counsel in the Supreme Court of California (1974 -77). The California Supreme Court's decision of the Jacoby & Meyers case preceded and foreshadowed the nationwide invalidation of the traditional anti-advertising and solicitation rule for lawyers by the United States Supreme Court some three months later in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
- Co-trial court counsel and lead appellate counsel for defendant/appellee Richard M. Nixon, People Versus PORN (Profit of Richard Nixon) v. Richard Milhouse Nixon, 465 F.Supp. 340 (N.D.Cal. 1978), aff'd, 634 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 916 (1981), dismissing taxpayers' claim for imposition of a constructive trust on the assets of the former President of the United States, based upon alleged concealment of the material facts of the Watergate affair. (1979 - 1981).
- Lead counsel for Team Lotus International, Ltd., in three Formula I race car Grand National championship arbitration proceedings: In the Matter of the Lotus 88: regarding the United States Grand Prix at Long Beach, CA, heard in Atlanta, GA (March 1981), and in Paris, France, in the International Court of Appeal, Fédération Internationale du Sport Automobile (April 1981); heard in Rio de Janeiro (March 1981) regarding the Brazilian Grand Prix; and at the British Grand Prix at the Silverstone Circuit (July 1981). Co-counsel on appeal from the F.I.S.A. president's unprecedented invalidation of the decision of the Stewards of the Meeting in favor of the Lotus 88 at the British Grand Prix, heard in the British Court of Appeal of Motor Racing at the Royal Automobile Club (London, September 1981). The British appeal was heard by a five-person panel chaired by Lord Shawcross who ruled that the F.I.S.A. president's invalidation of the decision of the British Stewards of the Meeting at Silverstone was erroneous - that the Lotus 88 was lawful and should have been allowed to compete in the British Grand Prix. Lord Shawcross' ruling was vacated by the international tribunal in Paris on jurisdictional grounds. (1981).
- Plaintiffs' counsel, Smith v. Superior Court (Abbott Ford, Inc., r.p.i.), 151 Cal. App.3d 491 (2d Dist. 1984) (hearing denied 1984); later, on post-settlement appeal, sub nom., Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court (Ford Motor Company and Sears Roebuck Co., r.p.i.), 43 Cal.3d 858 (1987), recognizing a new American tort of intentional spoliation of evidence. The California Supreme Court revisited the spoliation tort 14 years later and overruled Smith in Cedars - Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (Bowyer, r.p.i.), 18 Cal.4th 1, 14 fn.3, 18 fn.4 (1998). As of the summer of 2004, the tort was recognized by courts in eight jurisdictions (Alabama, Alaska, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, and Ohio). The tort has been given limited recognition in two other states (Indiana and New Jersey). Gorelick, et al., Destruction of Evidence (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1989). “The Tort of Spoliation of Evidence,” Chapt. 4, pp. 139 - 168; and 2005 cum. suppl. pp. 191 - 251, esp. at p. 196. (1981 - 1984).
- Lead trial court and appellate counsel for defendants in Universal Analytics, Inc. v. MacNeal-Schwendler Corp., 707 F.Supp. 1170 (C.D. Cal. 1989) (Stephen V. Wilson, U.S.D.J.), granting summary judgment to the defendants on claims of monopolization and attempt to monopolize (15 U.S.C. § 2) a part of the computerized engineering analysis software industry (the NASTRAN variety of finite element analysis software), aff'd, 914 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam, Hug, Schroeder and Hall, C.J.J.) The Ninth Circuit said, “[T]his is the first reported case of a claimed violation of [Sherman Act] section 2 as a result of alleged employee raiding or predatory hiring.” Cited with approval in Pacific Express, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc., 959 F.2d 814, 817-818 (9th Cir. 1992); Midwest Radio Co. v. Forum Pub. Co., 942 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir. 1991); discussed in Areeda & Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law (Little, Brown and Company; 1995 Supp.) ¶702 (Acquiring Talent) pp. 389-90. (1989 - 1990).
| |
