Senior Vice President of Business Development: Kevin Vermeulen
Vice President of Research & Development: Elizabeth Petit
Vice President of Content: Nancy Lippincott
Vice President of Sales: Josh Rupall
Vice President of IT: Larry Meadows
EDITORIAL
Managing Editor, Publications: Cole Hill
RESEARCH
Manager: Valerie Smith
DESIGN
Art Director: Eleni Tzinakos
Graphic Designers: Kaia Smith, Eduardo Rodriguez
PRODUCTION SERVICES
Senior Production Specialist: MaKenli Ladd
Production Coordinator: Aaleyah Obleton
PR & SOCIAL MEDIA
Senior Public Relations Manager: Alliccia Odeyemi
By Laurie Villanueva
By Bryan Driscoll
Chang
| Klein specializes in finding compelling stories and causes in complicated, high-profile cases.
Every case represents more than just a legal challenge – it represents a person, a family, and a community seeking justice and healing. It isn't just about winning cases; it's about creating lasting change and leaving the world better and safer than we found it.
Through our combination of cutting-edge technology, innovative out-of-the-box creative thinking, and compelling story-telling techniques, we've been privileged to secure some of the nation's most significant verdicts and settlements. But these achievements aren't just numbers –they represent lives changed, futures secured, and communities made safer. With nearly ninety years of collective experience guiding us, we are committed to our core mission: finding justice for those who need it most and turning cases into causes.
As we continue this important work, we're reminded that the most powerful stories are those that inspire change, protect the vulnerable, and bring hope to those who thought justice was out of reach.
BEST LAW FIRMS ®
Debuted in 2010, Best Law Firms is the most credible rankings of exceptional law firms, rooted in a rigorous, peer-to-peer, industry-driven evaluation.
Achieving a tiered ranking in Best Law Firms signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise. Ranked firms, presented in three tiers, are recognized on a national and metro-based scale.
The Best Law Firms research methodology includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review form leading attorneys in their field and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process.
Best Law Firms’ time-tested reputation and a future-focused commitment to innovation provides legal professionals with an elevated stature, validation and confidence that comes from being part of, and working with, a Best Law Firms honored practice.
BEST LAWYERS ®
Best Lawyers has developed a reputation by both clients and legal professionals as the most respected peer-review publication company globally. With a legacy of credibility and prestige for more than four decades, recognition by Best Lawyers is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor.
Best Lawyers publishes lawyer rankings in 76 regions around the world, researches and publishes Best Law Firms accolades and recently acquired Good2bSocial. Committed to providing unmatched service and benefits to the legal profession and clients of legal services, Best Lawyers and Best Law Firms accolades endure as definitive resources for top legal talent, building on Best Lawyers’ Purely Peer Review ® methodology founded more than 40 years ago.
Results Matter!
At Megeredchian Law we strive to exceed our client’s expectation with customer service that client’s deserve and results they want. 5 star rated on google and yelp, Megeredchian law is a full service law firm that handles personal injury cases specializing in catastrophic accidents, truck accidents, motor vehicle accidents, pedestrian and motorcycle accidents. We win, when it matters most. We have an in house litigation team ready to take on any insurance company and take them to court if needed. A perennial powerhouse, Megeredchian Law has obtain top 100 verdicts in California in 2024 and continues to raise the bar.
The
Best
Law Firms® methodology remains consistent and unchanged since we began awarding law firms in 2010.
Eligibility
A fi rm must have at least one lawyer recognized in the current edition of The Best Lawyers in America ® in a Best Law Firms practice area and geographic jurisdiction to become eligible for a Best Law Firms award.
Submission Process
As part of our formal research process, submission packets are emailed to fi rms every January. This includes:
• Your fi rm’s list of eligible awards
• Law Firm Survey
• Client/Professional Reference Submission
Research Components
Your firm’s work in a particular area is assessed through analyzing:
• Feedback provided by your clients/professional references.
◦ Clients/professional references are emailed a survey addressing a fi rm’s expertise, responsiveness, understanding of a business and its needs, costeffectiveness, civility and whether they would refer another client to the fi rm.
◦ Reference submissions are always kept strictly confi dential and are never shared or published elsewhere.
• Firmographic information supplied by the fi rm.
• Lawyer evaluations collected during the Best Lawyers ® research process.
◦ Data collected from Best Lawyers ballots, which can only be completed by lawyers who are currently recognized by Best Lawyers.
• Industry leader interviews
◦ Managing Partners and practice group leaders are invited to provide their assessments of the legal landscape.
Ranking by Tiers
The quantitative and qualitative data is combined into an overall Best Law Firms score for each fi rm. Because fi rms were often separated by small differences in overall score, we use a tiering system rather than ranking law fi rms sequentially.
The number of tiers awarded in each practice area and metropolitan area varies, and some specialties may not be ranked in jurisdictions where there is not enough data to create competitive analysis.
Awards and Award Notification
Firms are confi dentially noti fi ed of their rankings by email in late July. Awards are always tied to a speci fi c area of law and are segmented as follows:
• Metro Tiers 1-3
• National Tiers 1-3
• “Law Firm of the Year”*
*Only one law fi rm is named the “Law Firm of the Year” in a particular practice area.
Public Release
Rankings are released to the public on bestlaw fi rms.com in early November of each year.
Read our expanded methodology at bestlaw fi rms.com/methodology-expanded
PRACTICE AREAS
For the 14th edition of Best Law Firms®, 1,683 exceptional California firms have been ranked in various areas of legal practice. The rankings encompass a diverse group of firms across the state, making the rankings a valuable research tool for the legal community as well as clients in search of legal counsel.
Presented in tiers, the rankings encompass 69 practice areas represented nationally among California ranked fi rms and 117
practice areas represented in California metro areas. Whether potential clients are representatives of Fortune 1000 companies or small business owners or individuals, we believe the Best Law Firms rankings provide a credible and reliable resource to assist in fi nding the right fi rm for their needs.
Our entire database, featuring all rankings in all tiers, is available at bestlaw fi rms.com
Firms received metropolitan and national rankings in the following 117 practice areas:
• TOTAL SPECIALTIES: 117
• ADMINISTRATIVE / REGULATORY LAW
• ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW
• ADVERTISING LAW
• ANTITRUST LAW
• APPELLATE PRACTICE
• ARBITRATION
• AVIATION LAW
• BANKING AND FINANCE LAW
• BANKRUPTCY AND CREDITOR DEBTOR RIGHTS / INSOLVENCY AND REORGANIZATION LAW
• BET-THE-COMPANY LITIGATION
• BIOTECHNOLOGY AND LIFE SCIENCES PRACTICE
• BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS (INCLUDING LLCS AND PARTNERSHIPS)
• CIVIL RIGHTS LAW
• CLOSELY HELD COMPANIES AND FAMILY BUSINESSES LAW
• COMMERCIAL FINANCE LAW
• COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
• COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS / UCC LAW
• COMMUNICATIONS LAW
• CONSTRUCTION LAW
• COPYRIGHT LAW
• CORPORATE COMPLIANCE LAW
• CORPORATE GOVERNANCE LAW
• CORPORATE LAW
• CRIMINAL DEFENSE: GENERAL PRACTICE
• CRIMINAL DEFENSE: WHITE-COLLAR
• DUI / DWI DEFENSE
• EDUCATION LAW
• ELDER LAW
• EMINENT DOMAIN AND CONDEMNATION LAW
• EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (ERISA) LAW
• EMPLOYMENT LAW - INDIVIDUALS
• EMPLOYMENT LAW - MANAGEMENT
• ENERGY LAW
• ENERGY REGULATORY LAW
• ENTERTAINMENT LAW - MOTION PICTURES AND TELEVISION
• MASS TORT LITIGATION / CLASS ACTIONS - DEFENDANTS
• MASS TORT LITIGATION / CLASS ACTIONS - PLAINTIFFS
• MEDIA LAW
• MEDIATION
• MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAW - DEFENDANTS
• MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAW - PLAINTIFFS
• MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS LAW
• MUNICIPAL LAW
• MUTUAL FUNDS LAW
• NATIVE AMERICAN LAW
• NATURAL RESOURCES LAW
• NONPROFIT / CHARITIES LAW
• OIL AND GAS LAW
• PATENT LAW
• PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION - DEFENDANTS
• PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION - PLAINTIFFS
• PRIVACY AND DATA SECURITY LAW
• PRIVATE FUNDS / HEDGE FUNDS LAW
• PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION - DEFENDANTS
• PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION - PLAINTIFFS
• PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE LAW - DEFENDANTS
• PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE LAW - PLAINTIFFS
• PROJECT FINANCE LAW
• PUBLIC FINANCE LAW
• RAILROAD LAW
• REAL ESTATE LAW
• SECURITIES / CAPITAL MARKETS LAW
• SECURITIES REGULATION
• SECURITIZATION AND STRUCTURED FINANCE LAW
• SPORTS LAW
• TAX LAW
• TECHNOLOGY LAW
• TRADEMARK LAW
• TRANSPORTATION LAW
• TRUSTS AND ESTATES
• UTILITIES LAW
• VENTURE CAPITAL LAW
• WATER LAW
• WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW - CLAIMANTS
• 3/18/2025, 10:47:26 AM
The Calif. Bar Exam Aimed to Cut Costs. What Happened Next Was a Nightmare for Aspiring Lawyers.
By Laurie Villanueva
THE INTRODUCTION OF A REVAMPED CALIFORNIA BAR EXAM was supposed to set a new benchmark for state licensing tests. Instead, its much-anticipated debut made headlines for all the wrong reasons, culminating in one of the worst failures in the history of legal-industry testing.
Aspiring attorneys who took the exam in February faced a nightmare scenario as technical failures plagued the exam process. Logins failed, test modules froze mid-exam, and entire testing centers spiraled into chaos. Some applicants waited hours for technical support that never came; others were abruptly logged out with no way to recover their progress.
The massive failure placed an immense burden on test-takers, many of whom had invested thousands in exam fees and preparation, only to see their efforts derailed. For many, the stakes were even higher—delays in bar passage threatened job offers and professional opportunities.
“Today was one of the worst days of my life,” one test-taker wrote in an email to the State Bar Association obtained by the Los Angeles Times . “There were a few points that I thought I was having a panic attack and almost had to call an ambulance because I didn’t want to die alone today at my computer.”
Early Signs of Trouble and an Unprecedented Offer
The overhauled exam was designed to streamline the testing process and reduce cost by giving bar candidates the option to sit for the two-day test in person or remotely, beginning on Feb. 25.
After racking up a budget deficit of $22.2 million last year, the California State Bar Association chose to abandon the widely used National Conference of Bar Examiners’ Multistate Bar Examination in favor of the new hybrid system. The plan was fast-tracked last August, when test prep company Kaplan Exam Services was tasked with creating new questions, and ProcturU Inc., doing
business as Meazure Learning, was contracted to administer the exam. By reducing its reliance on physical testing centers, the state bar estimated the new hybrid approach would result in cost savings of $3.8 million annually.
Roughly 5,600 would-be attorneys ultimately registered to take the redesigned exam. However, according to Reuters , candidates encountered a host of technical and logistical problems in the runup to its launch, including frequent computer crashes and distracted proctors on a mock version of the test. Some were even unable to schedule their exams.
Just days before the test’s official launch, the state bar association sent an email to registrants apologizing for the “messy” rollout. In an unprecedented move, the bar also announced that candidates who failed the February exam or withdrew by the start date would be allowed to retake the test for free in July.
A Day of Chaos
More than 960 registrants eventually decided to opt out due to the anticipated problems. Unfortunately, many who chose to push ahead with the exam were greeted by chaos.
Speaking with Reuters , one test-taker recounted how he attempted to log on more than 30 times, but the platform crashed whenever a proctor attempted to join the session. He was never able to start the exam.
“I’ve invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into becoming a lawyer,” he said. “It’s supposed to pay off, eventually. It feels so far out of reach right now. I don’t know if I can do this to myself again.”
Other recurring issues reported by test-takers included system crashes and authentication failures, along with prolonged delays in accessing the platform. Some claimed proctors made unauthorized changes to their systems mid-test, while others complained of conflicting instructions and rampant
disorganization among the support team. A critical feature that should have allowed candidates to copy and paste text into response fields was also disabled. Multiple choice questions were also plagued by typos, incomplete information, and what some candidates described as poorly structured reasoning.
Aspiring Attorneys “Cheated and Disrespected”
Backlash to the testing meltdown was almost immediate, as angry bar applicants flooded social media to vent their frustrations and demand accountability.
“This was an utterly botched exam that fails every standard of professionalism,” one Reddit poster wrote. “We all deserve a refund, pass or fail, because this fiasco is basically a breach of contract, at minimum. This is absolutely not what we paid for.”
However, the online furor was only the beginning.
On Feb. 28, Mazure Learning was named a defendant in the first of at least two class-action lawsuits filed on behalf of aggrieved bar candidates. The complaint, currently pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, alleges the Birmingham, Ala., testing company “fast-tracked” the new exam and relied on a “rushed” software platform that couldn’t handle the expected volume of test-takers.
The California Supreme Court weighed in on March 4, directing the state bar to revert to the traditional in-person format for the next round of testing in July, and to work with the vendor to provide “an expedited, detailed report regarding the problems encountered by applicants.” The State Bar Board of Trustees ordered an independent probe the next day, following two hours of public comments from test-takers furious over the failed launch.
“You guys are the body that is determining if we are competent to earn
ISTOCK/ MUHARREM HUNER
a living,” said one attendee, according to The New York Times . “Finances are being destroyed. Lives are being destroyed, and are about to be destroyed even more.”
An AI Disclosure and Impending Resignation
In late April—more than two months after the exam’s disastrous debut—the California Bar Association admitted that some of the test’s multiple-choice questions were written by a non-lawyer using the artificial intelligence platform ChatGPT, kicking off yet another wave of anger and criticism.
“The debacle that was the February 2025 bar exam is worse than we imagined,” Mary Basick, assistant dean of academic skills at the University of California, Irvine, Law School, told the Los Angeles Times . “I’m almost speechless.”
On May 2, Leah T. Wilson, the bar association’s embattled executive director, informed the Board of Trustees that she would not seek another term in the position she has held since 2017.
“At the end of the day, I am responsible for everything that occurs within the organization,” Wilson said in a statement
announcing her resignation, effective July 7. “Despite our best intentions, the experiences of applicants for the February Bar Exam simply were unacceptable, and I fully recognize the frustration and stress this experience caused. While there are no words to assuage those emotions, I do sincerely apologize.”
Hours later, the California Supreme Court ordered a return to the Multistate Bar Exam—the 200-question multiple choice portion of the test in use prior to February—for the July exam, citing concerns “over the process used to draft those questions, including the previously undisclosed use of artificial intelligence”.
In addition to granting the state bar’s request to lower the passing score for February’s exam to 534, California’s highest court also ordered the bar to “impute” scores for candidates unable to complete significant portions of the test.
What’s Next for California Bar Candidates?
The California State Association has since filed suit against Meazure Learning
in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking compensatory and punitive damages, along with a court-mandated audit of the vendor.
The bar asserts the company failed to deliver on its promise of a platform capable of supporting up to 25,000 test-takers and delayed providing information and data on issues candidates encountered in February. When Meazure eventually furnished the information, the bar association claims it was incomplete.
The results of the February bar exam were released the same day. Nearly 56% of candidates passed once the scoring adjustments were made—the highest spring pass rate in 60 years.
The bar association’s Committee of Bar Examiners convened later that evening to consider several other potential remedies. The members subsequently voted 8-2 to approve a previously tabled proposal that would allow applicants who failed or withdrew from the February exam to receive provisional licenses to practice law under an attorney’s supervision for two years. However, they would still need
to take and pass a bar exam to be fully admitted as attorneys in California.
Test-takers who either failed or withdrew from California’s challenging February bar exam may still have an opportunity to work under the guidance of an experienced lawyer while preparing to retake the licensing exam.
On May 9, the State Bar of California’s Board of Trustees voted to extend a provisional licensure program originally launched in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. This program would allow February bar examinees who were unsuccessful or withdrew to work under supervision for up to two years while they attempt to pass the exam. However, the expansion of this program still requires approval from the California Supreme Court.
practice under supervision without needing to pass the bar exam. Despite these appeals, the board did not discuss such an option during its meeting.
This debacle was more than a technical failure— it was a profound breach of institutional responsibility.
Many February examinees had requested various remedies in public comments to the board, including a program that would permit them to
The Bottom Line
According to the state bar association, it will cost at least $2.3 million more than anticipated to address issues that arose in February when the California Bar
Exam is next administered in July. What started as an attempt to reduce costs and enhance efficiency has instead exposed the risks of hasty implementation without adequate infrastructure, oversight, or transparency. For many testtakers, this debacle was more than a technical failure—it was a profound breach of institutional responsibility. The emotional and financial toll inflicted on candidates, some of whom may never fully regain their confidence or career momentum, is immeasurable.
The California State Bar Association has taken some important steps to remedy the situation, but the damage is already done. The real question now is whether the bar—and the broader testing industry—will draw meaningful lessons from this debacle, or if February 2025 will simply serve as yet another cautionary tale of bureaucratic ambition outpacing reality. •
CALIFORNIA’S ‘FORCED OUTING’ LAW AND THE LEGAL BATTLE OVER GENDER IDENTITY
BY BRYAN DRISCOLL
CALIFORNIA’S ASSEMBLY BILL 1955 (SAFETY ACT) made it the first state to codify protections against forced outing, barring schools from automatically notifying parents if a student changes their gender identity. Now, the Trump administration is using federal power to challenge California’s Safety Act head-on.
At stake is far more than school policy. This is a direct clash between federal and state authority, the legal boundaries of student rights, and the limits of parental control. It’s a legal collision that forces tough questions: How far can a state go to shield vulnerable students? How far can the federal government push back using conditional funding and federal law?
How AB 1955 Reframes the Legal Playing Field
California’s Safety Act bans schools from adopting or enforcing rules that require staff to notify parents if a student changes their name, pronouns, or gender identity without the student’s consent. It doesn’t stop staff from speaking with parents voluntarily. It doesn’t block parents from requesting student records. What it stops is mandatory, automatic notification.
FERPA—the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act—gives parents the right to access their child’s education records when they request them. It does not require schools to proactively report updates unless asked.
California’s law preserves that structure. Parents can still access records, but they can’t expect schools to act as a reporting pipeline by default.
California crafted this law to work within the limits of FERPA, not against it. The law protects students from forced outing while leaving intact the formal access pathways that FERPA guarantees. That careful drafting forces any federal challenge to stretch FERPA’s language further than it has historically gone.
FERPA has always focused on improper disclosure— stopping schools from leaking private student information. California flips the tension by limiting mandatory disclosures, not accidental ones. That legal nuance matters. California is pressing whether a state can strengthen privacy protections for vulnerable students without breaching federal access rules.
FERPA’s Novel Use and the Constitutional Undercurrents
Historically, FERPA has guaranteed parents access to their child’s educational records when they request them. That’s a reactive right.
The administration’s argument flips this, claiming FERPA also creates a proactive right—one where parents are automatically entitled to know if their child changes their name, pronouns, or gender identity at school. Turning FERPA into a disclosure mandate marks a significant and unprecedented shift in federal enforcement strategy.
Now, the administration claims that non-disclosure itself is a federal violation. Expanding FERPA in this way could set a new federal standard, one with ripple effects across all fifty states.
The constitutional undercurrent makes this even more consequential. At its core, this is a battle over federalism. Can the federal government leverage conditional funding—roughly 10% of K-12 school budgets nationwide—to force states to adopt new disclosure rules, even when those rules go beyond the plain text of federal law?
California says no. The administration says yes, framing it as a matter of parental rights and federal supremacy.
In practical terms, the Trump administration’s argument tests how much room states like California really have when designing privacy laws. If federal agencies can attach new conditions to funding based on an expansive reading of federal statutes, states may find their policymaking space shrinking fast.
One crucial legal backdrop here is the Supreme Court’s ruling in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), which upheld Congress’s power to attach conditions to federal funding—so long as those conditions are not coercive, serve the general welfare, and relate clearly to the federal interest. But this case raises a fresh challenge: Is withholding education funds over disclosure policies genuinely tied to the federal government’s educational role, or is it an overreach driven by ideology?
Courts may have to draw lines around when federal conditions move from lawful influence into unconstitutional
coercion. For legal professionals, the outcome here could reshape how agencies attach strings to everything from education funding to healthcare and transportation grants.
That’s why this challenge matters. It’s about the balance of power between state governments and the federal agencies that oversee education policy.
Legal Risks, Precedent-Setting, and the Future of LGBTQ+ Student Protections
If courts uphold the Trump administration’s expanded reading of FERPA, it could set a national precedent, reshaping how schools handle student privacy across the country. Suddenly, states wouldn’t just have to comply with parental access requests—they could be required to build proactive reporting systems, notifying parents anytime a student signals a change in gender identity, regardless of student consent.
That shift would mark a legal rollback for LGBTQ+ student protections nationwide. Laws like California’s would become vulnerable. States looking to replicate California’s protections— or even maintain existing local policies—would face federal funding threats and legal challenges.
But the risk isn’t just legal—it’s personal. If schools are forced into a disclosure role, the chilling effect on counseling services, safe spaces, and student well-being would be immediate. Counselors and teachers who currently serve as trusted adults for vulnerable students could find themselves legally trapped, unable to protect a student’s confidentiality even when safety is at stake.
LGBTQ+ students already face disproportionate rates of homelessness, family rejection, and mental health struggles. Mandatory outing policies would only deepen those risks.
This battle will test how far agencies can stretch federal statutes and whether courts will endorse expansive federal power. If this FERPA reading holds, other agencies may follow suit, using conditional funding to push mandates beyond education.
Many of the political actors driving these federal challenges— including conservative parental rights groups—are the same
“THIS FIGHT ISN’T CONFINED TO CALIFORNIA. THIS IS A HIGH-STAKES
TEST OF
HOW FAR STATES CAN PROTECT VULNERABLE POPULATIONS.”
voices that, in other cases, argue for strong states’ rights and limits on federal reach. But here, they lean on federal authority to override a state’s decision to strengthen student privacy. This isn’t just political irony—it’s a legal pivot that forces courts to wrestle with selective federalism arguments. For legal professionals, tracking how courts reconcile inconsistency will be just as critical as watching how they interpret FERPA itself.
This legal fight may also reshape policy debates in state legislatures nationwide. States on both sides will reassess their legal strategies, with some weighing stronger protections and others testing mandatory disclosure laws, daring federal agencies to respond. The outcome in California could embolden one side or the other, setting the tone for a new wave of education and privacy litigation across the country. Lawyers working in this space should start preparing for that expanded landscape now.
Watch closely as district court rulings emerge and track whether appellate courts fast-track this case for Supreme Court consideration. Pay attention to amicus briefs, especially from civil rights organizations, conservative parental rights groups, and state governments lining up on both sides. Monitor how federal agencies in other areas—such as Title IX enforcement or civil rights oversight—may follow this FERPA strategy, testing expanded interpretations of federal authority against state-designed protections. The precedents set here could ripple outward fast.
This case fits into a broader trend of federal agencies testing the limits of their power, especially under politically
motivated agendas. Whether in healthcare, environmental regulation, or civil rights enforcement, the question of how far federal agencies can stretch existing statutes without new congressional mandates is surfacing repeatedly. For lawyers, this case offers a lens into the evolving boundaries of administrative law—and a preview of legal arguments likely to surface in multiple domains over the next decade.
Beyond litigation, legal teams advising schools and state education departments should prepare contingency plans. If courts uphold the federal position, states will need updated compliance protocols, new staff training, and revised privacy policies. If California prevails, conservative-leaning states may escalate efforts to force disclosures through state law, triggering a fresh round of constitutional challenges. Legal professionals advising on education policy, civil rights, and state governance will need to stay nimble, anticipating legal shifts that may reshape the rules of engagement for years to come.
How State Law Could Turn Into a National Fight
This fight isn’t confined to California.
This is a high-stakes test of how far states can protect vulnerable populations—and how far the federal government can override them using conditional funding and expanded statutes. At its core, this is a national fight over the future of privacy law, agency power, and the limits of parental authority.
For the legal profession, the stakes couldn’t be clearer. This case demands attention not just because of what’s happening in California classrooms, but because of the precedent it could set for how courts read federal statutes like FERPA and how they balance state and federal authority. If the courts endorse an aggressive federal expansion, the ripple effects will be felt far beyond student privacy, reshaping how legal protections are built, challenged, and enforced across the country.
It’s a sharp reminder that today’s legal battles aren’t isolated skirmishes—they are boundary-setting fights that will shape the legal terrain for years to come. •
Admiralty and Maritime Law
Blank Rome
Advertising Law
Davis+Gilbert
Antitrust Law
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Appellate Practice
Mayer Brown
Banking and Finance Law
Latham & Watkins
Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
Kirkland & Ellis
Biotechnology and Life Sciences Practice
Goodwin
Commercial Litigation
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
Communications Law
Wilkinson Barker Knauer
Construction Law
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings
Copyright Law
Davis Wright Tremaine
Corporate Law
Kirkland & Ellis
Criminal Defense: White-Collar
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
Derivatives and Futures Law
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
BestLaw Firms® has awarded “Law Firm of the Year” honors to a single firm across the 74 practice areas recognized in the 2025 rankings. These firms have demonstrated exceptional performance in our research, a combination of client and professional references, reviews by other attorneys within the same practice area, the firm’s collective contribution to each practice area and input received by the industry’s firm leaders.
“Our methodology is comprehensive, rigorous and historically proven,” says CEO of Best Lawyers Phillip Greer. “Twelve years since its inaugural release, ‘Law Firm of the Year’ awards are regarded by the legal industry as the most reputable indicator of firm excellence. Our extensive process guarantees this designation is bestowed upon only the best legal practices.”
Employment Law - Management
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
Energy Law
Baker Botts
Entertainment Law - Motion Pictures and
Television
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
Entertainment Law - Music Loeb & Loeb
Environmental Law
Arnold & Porter
Equipment Finance Law Duane Morris
FDA Law
Covington & Burling
Financial Services Regulation Law
Davis Polk & Wardwell
Franchise Law
DLA Piper
Health Care Law
McDermott Will & Emery
Immigration Law
BAL
Information Technology Law
Morrison & Foerster
Insurance Law
Covington & Burling
International Arbitration - Commercial
White & Case
International Arbitration - Governmental
King & Spalding
HONOREES “Law Firm of the Year”
International Trade and Finance Law
Hogan Lovells US
Labor Law - Management
Seyfarth Shaw
Land Use and Zoning Law
Perkins Coie
Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
Litigation - Antitrust Hausfeld
Litigation - Banking and Finance Cravath, Swaine & Moore
Litigation - Bankruptcy
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
Litigation - Construction Peckar & Abramson
Litigation - Environmental Beveridge & Diamond
Litigation - ERISA
Groom Law Group
Litigation - First Amendment Ballard Spahr
Litigation - Intellectual Property
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
Litigation - Labor and Employment
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
Litigation - Mergers and Acquisitions
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
Litigation - Patent Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
Litigation and Controversy - Tax Chamberlain Hrdlicka
Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough
Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Plaintiffs Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
Media Law
Davis Wright Tremaine
Mergers and Acquisitions Law Sullivan & Cromwell
Mining Law Fennemore
Mutual Funds Law Willkie Farr & Gallagher
Native American Law
Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry
Natural Resources Law Stoel Rives
Oil and Gas Law Bracewell
Patent Law Fish & Richardson
Private Funds / Hedge Funds Law Ropes & Gray
Project Finance Law Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
Public Finance Law
Hawkins Delafield & Wood
Railroad Law Phelps Dunbar
Real Estate Law Paul Hastings
Securities / Capital Markets Law Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Securities Regulation K&L Gates
Securitization and Structured Finance Law Sidley Austin
Sports Law
Proskauer Rose
Tax Law
Latham & Watkins
Technology Law Cooley
Trademark Law
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
Transportation Law
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff
Trusts and Estates
Greenberg Traurig
Venture Capital Law Cooley
National Rankings in California by Practice Area
THE LAW FIRMS IN CALIFORNIA that received national rankings in the 2025 edition of Best Law Firms® are featured below. These firms were eligible for national rankings because they received a coinciding metropolitan ranking in at least one of their California office locations. Across all tiers, a total of California firms received national rankings in 69 practice areas. Visit bestlawfirms.com to view nationally ranked firms in all tiers.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. ❶
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius ❶
Morrison Foerster ❷
O’Melveny & Myers ❷
Perkins Coie LLP ❶
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan ❶
Robert B. Morrill ❷
Ropes & Gray LLP ❶
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP ❷
Sidley Austin LLP ❶
Tensegrity Law Group LLP ❷
Turner Boyd Seraphine ❷
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP ❸
Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP ❶
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati ❶
Private Funds /
Hedge Funds Law
Cooley LLP ❷
Goodwin ❶
K&L Gates LLP ❶
Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP ❷
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP ❷
Project Finance Law
Akin ❸
Latham & Watkins LLP ❶
McDermott Will & Emery ❷
Milbank LLP ❶
Public Finance Law
Nixon Peabody LLP ❶
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP ❶
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ❶
Railroad Law
Jones Day ❶
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP ❷
R. Edward P fiester, A Law Corporation ❷
Real Estate Law
Akerman LLP ❶
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble
Mallory & Natsis LLP ❶
Alston & Bird LLP ❶
ArentFox Schiff LLP ❶
BakerHostetler ❶
Barnes & Thornburg LLP ❶
Blank Rome LLP ❶
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP ❶
Buchalter, A Professional Corporation ❷
Burke Williams & Sorensen LLP ❸
Carlton Fields, P.A. ❶
Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP ❸
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP ❶
Cozen O’Connor ❶
DLA Piper ❶
Duane Morris LLP ❶
Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP ❷
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP ❶
Farella Braun + Martel LLP ❸
Feldman Law Group LLP ❸
Fennemore, P.C. ❸
FisherBroyles, LLP ❶
Foley & Lardner LLP ❶
Frost Brown Todd LLP ❶
Gibbs Giden Locher Turner
Senet & Wittbrodt LLP ❷
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP ❶
Glaser Weil Fink Howard
Jordan & Shapiro LLP ❷
Goodwin ❶
Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani, LLP ❷
Greenberg Glusker Fields
Claman & Machtinger LLP ❷
Greenberg Traurig ❶
Hanna & Van Atta ❸
Hanson Bridgett LLP ❷
Haynes and Boone, LLP ❶
Hill, Farrer & Burrill LLP ❸
Hogan Lovells US LLP ❶
Holland & Hart LLP ❸
Holland & Knight LLP ❶
Iaffaldano, Shaw and Young ❸
Irell & Manella LLP ❸
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP ❶
Jones Day ❶
K&L Gates LLP ❶
Katten ❶
Kennerly, Lamishaw & Rossi LLP ❷
Kirkland & Ellis LLP ❶
Latham & Watkins LLP ❶
Locke Lord LLP ❶
Loeb & Loeb LLP ❶
Lubin Olson & Niewiadomski LLP ❸
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP ❷
Mayer Brown ❶
McDermott Will & Emery ❶
McGuireWoods LLP ❶
Miller Barondess LLP ❸
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. ❷
Morrison Foerster ❶
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP ❷
Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP ❸
Nixon Peabody LLP ❶
O’Melveny & Myers ❸
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ❶
Paradise Law Group ❸
Paul Hastings LLP ❶
Perkins Coie LLP ❶
Pillsbury ❶
Polsinelli PC ❶
Proskauer Rose LLP ❶
Ravid Law Group ❷
Reed Smith LLP ❶
Saul Ewing LLP ❷
Seyfarth Shaw LLP ❶
Shartsis Friese LLP ❸
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP ❶
Shumaker Mallory, LLP ❷
Sidley Austin LLP ❶
Sklar Kirsh LLP ❸
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. ❷
SSL Law Firm, LLP ❸
Stoel Rives LLP ❷
Troutman Pepper ❶
Vedder Price P.C. ❷
Venable LLP ❶
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP ❶
Winston & Strawn LLP ❶
Securities / Capital
Markets Law
Arnold & Porter ❶
Buchalter, A Professional
Corporation ❸
Cooley LLP ❶
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP ❶
Fenwick & West LLP ❶
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP ❶
Gunderson Dettmer Stough
Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian, LLP ❷
Jones Day ❶
Keesal, Young & Logan ❷
Latham & Watkins LLP ❶
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP ❷
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP ❷
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. ❶
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius ❶
O’Melveny & Myers ❶
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ❷
Paul Hastings LLP ❸
Pearson Warshaw, LLP ❸
Perkins Coie LLP ❶
Pillsbury ❶
Proskauer Rose LLP ❶
RL Fein, Inc. PC ❷
Sidley Austin LLP ❶
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP ❶
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP ❶
TroyGould PC ❷
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati ❶
Securities Regulation
Cooley LLP ❶
Fenwick & West LLP ❷
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP ❶
Halloran Farkas + Kittila LLP ❸
Sidley Austin LLP ❶
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP ❷
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. ❶
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati ❸
Securitization and Structured Finance Law
Chapman and Cutler LLP ❷
Dentons U.S. LLP ❶
Holland & Knight LLP ❷
Law Offices of Jeffrey T. Petersen ❸
McDermott Will & Emery ❶
McGuireWoods LLP ❷
Proskauer Rose LLP ❷
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP ❷
Sports Law
ArentFox Schiff LLP ❷
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP ❶
Latham & Watkins LLP ❶
Proskauer Rose LLP ❶
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP ❶
Tax Law
A&O Shearman ❷
Adler & Colvin ❸
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble
Mallory & Natsis LLP ❸
Ascendant LLP ❷
Baker McKenzie LLP ❶
BakerHostetler ❶
Barish Tax Law ❷
Buchalter, A Professional Corporation ❸
Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP ❷
Deloitte LLP ❸
DLA Piper ❶
Duane Morris LLP ❶
Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP ❶
EY ❶
Farella Braun + Martel LLP ❷
Foley & Lardner LLP ❶
Fox Rothschild LLP ❷
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP ❶
Glaser Weil Fink Howard
Jordan & Shapiro LLP ❸
Greenberg Glusker Fields
Claman & Machtinger LLP ❷
Greenberg Traurig ❶
Hochman Salkin Toscher
Perez, P.C. ❷
Hoffman, Sabban & Watenmaker, APC ❷
Irell & Manella LLP ❷
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP ❷
Karlin & Peebles, LLP ❷
Kirkland & Ellis LLP ❶
Latham & Watkins LLP ❶
Loeb & Loeb LLP ❶
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP ❶
Mather Anderson ❷
Mayer Brown ❶
McDermott Will & Emery ❶
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP ❷
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius ❶
Morrison Foerster ❷
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP ❷
Nixon Peabody LLP ❶
O’Melveny & Myers ❷
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ❶
Paul Hastings LLP ❶
Pillsbury ❶
Proskauer Rose LLP ❶
Schuck Law Group ❷
Seyfarth Shaw LLP ❷
Shartsis Friese LLP ❸
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP ❸
Sideman & Bancroft LLP ❸
Venable LLP ❶
VLP Law Group LLP ❷
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP ❶
Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP ❶
Withersworldwide ❶
Technology Law
Cooley LLP ❶
Fenwick & West LLP ❶
Goodwin ❶
Greenberg Traurig ❶
Gunderson Dettmer Stough
Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian, LLP ❷
Irell & Manella LLP ❷
Jones Day ❸
Law Office of William S. Coats ❸
Perkins Coie LLP ❶
Trademark Law
DLA Piper ❶
Duane Morris LLP ❶
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP ❶
Fenwick & West LLP ❶
Haynes and Boone, LLP ❶
Irell & Manella LLP ❷
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP ❷
Katten ❶
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP ❶
Kirkland & Ellis LLP ❶
Knobbe Martens ❶
Lewis Roca LLP ❶
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius ❶
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ❷
Perkins Coie LLP ❶
Reed Smith LLP ❷
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP ❸
Sideman & Bancroft LLP ❷
Sidley Austin LLP ❸
Tactical Law Group LLP ❷
Verso Law Group LLP ❸
Transportation Law
Holland & Knight LLP ❶
Kennedys ❸
Trusts and Estates
Adler & Colvin ❸
Albertson & Davidson LLP ❸
Carico Glowacki Macdonald
Kil & Benz LLP ❷
Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP ❷
Cox Law Group, Inc. ❷
Duane Morris LLP ❶
Edwards, Ashton & Gin, LLP ❷
Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP ❸
Farella Braun + Martel LLP ❷
Feinberg, Mindel, Brandt & Klein, LLP ❸
Fennemore, P.C. ❸
Friedman McCubbin
Law Group LLP ❷
Greenberg Glusker Fields
Claman & Machtinger LLP ❷
Greenberg Traurig ❶
Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP ❷
Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP ❷
Hanson Bridgett LLP ❸
Henderson, Caverly & Pum LLP ❸
Hochman Salkin Toscher
Perez, P.C. ❸
Hoffman, Sabban &
Watenmaker, APC ❷
Holland & Knight LLP ❶
Jakle, Alexander & Patton, LLP ❸
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP ❶
Karlin & Peebles, LLP ❷
Katten ❶
Keystone Law Group, P.C. ❷
Lagerlof LLP ❸
Law Offices of Jack A.
Rameson, III, Inc. ❸
Loeb & Loeb LLP ❶
McDermott Will & Emery ❶
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP ❷
Moore, Bryan, Schroff & Inoue LLP ❷
Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP ❸
Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP ❶
Oldman, Sallus, & Gold, LLP ❷
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ❸
Perkins Coie LLP ❶
Pillsbury ❶
Proskauer Rose LLP ❶
Rimon P.C. ❶
RMO LLP ❸
Rodnunsky & Associates ❸
Rodriguez, Horii, Choi & Cafferata LLP ❷
Rogers Trust Law ❷
Saul Ewing LLP ❶
Seyfarth Shaw LLP ❷
Shartsis Friese LLP ❷
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP ❶
Sideman & Bancroft LLP ❷
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP ❶
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. ❸
Thompson Coburn LLP ❶
Venable LLP ❶
Weinstock Manion, A Law Corporation ❷
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP ❶
Withersworldwide ❶
Venture Capital Law
Cooley LLP ❶
DLA Piper ❶
Fenwick & West LLP ❶
Goodwin ❶
Gunderson Dettmer Stough
Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian, LLP ❶
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. ❷
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius ❶
Morrison Foerster ❶
Pillsbury ❷
Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP ❶
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati ❶
Metro Rankings in California
AMONG ALL FIRMS THAT WERE ELIGIBL E for 2025 Best Law Firms ® consideration in California, 1,683 firms received at least one metropolitan ranking in 2025 in California. The rankings honor law firms of varying sizes and scopes, across 12 metropolitan regions and 117 practice areas. Regional results in all tiers are available online at bestlawfirms.com .
YOKA |SMITH has been recognized by Best Law Firms®️ 2025 as a tier 1 Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants and Product Liability Litigation - Defendants firm in Los Angeles www.yokasmith.com
Nonprofit / Charities Law
Greenberg Glusker LLP ❷
Loeb & Loeb LLP ❶
McDermott Will & Emery ❸
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP ❶
Rodriguez, Horii, Choi & Cafferata LLP ❶
Seyfarth Shaw LLP ❶
Venable LLP ❷
Withersworldwide ❶
Oil and Gas Law
Alston & Bird LLP ❷
Pillsbury ❶
Patent Law
BakerHostetler ❷
Burns Legal ❸
Foundation Law Group, LLP ❶
Irell & Manella LLP ❶
O’Melveny & Myers ❶
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ❶
Perkins Coie LLP ❷
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan ❶
Shore IP Group, PLLC ❸
Personal Injury Litigation
- Defendants
Baker, Keener & Nahra, LLP ❶
Demler, Armstrong & Rowland, LLP ❸
Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar, LLP ❶
Howarth & Smith ❶
Law Offices of Peter Q. Ezzell ❶
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP ❷
McMahan & Carroll, PC ❸
Michael J. Bonesteel ❷
Sidley Austin LLP ❶
Stolpman Law Group, LLP ❷
Taylor DeMarco LLP ❶
Yoka | Smith, LLP ❶
Personal Injury
Litigation - Plaintiffs
Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo LLP ❶
Adamson Ahdoot LLP ❷
AlderLaw P.C. ❶
Arash Law ❷
Arias Sanguinetti, LLP ❶
Athea Trial Lawyers LLP ❶
Azizi Law Firm ❷
Bailey & Partners ❷
Balaban & Spielberger, LLP ❶
Banafshe Law Firm ❷
Banafsheh Danesh & Javid ❷
Binder Law Group PLC ❸
Boyle Law PC ❶
Carpenter & Zuckerman ❷
Chang Klein LLP ❶
Chudacoff, Friedman, Simon, Graff & Cherin, LLP ❶
Cohen Law Partners ❸
Dalimonte Rueb Stoller ❶
Dolan Law Firm PC ❶
Dordick Law Corporation ❶
Doyle Law ❶
Drake law Firm ❶
Ellis Law Corporation ❷
Ellis Riccobono, LLP ❷
Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack ❶
Feher Law, APC ❶
Fornos Law Firm ❶
Gilbert & Stern LLP ❸
Glickman & Glickman, A Law Corporation ❸
Greene Broillet & Wheeler, LLP ❶
Guizar, Henderson & Carrazco LLP ❷
Heimanson & Wolf, LLP ❷
Herzog, Yuhas, Ehrlich & Ardell, APC ❶
Howarth & Smith ❶
Ivie McNeill Wyatt Purcell & Diggs A Professional Corporation ❶
Jacoby & Meyers ❶
Johnston & Hutchinson LLP ❶
Joseph J.M. Lange Law Corporation ❶
Karns & Karns Personal Injury and Accident Attorneys ❶
Kennedy Wilshire PC ❸
Law Office of Edgar Poghosyan ❶
Law Office of KD Griffin, PC ❸
Law Office of Michael D. Waks, Personal Injury & Car Accident Attorney ❷
Law Office of Thomas M Dempsey ❶
Law Offices of Christopher Montes de Oca ❸
Law Offices of Daniel T. Pierson ❶
Law Offices of David E. Wood ❷
Law Offices of Michels & Lew ❶
Law Offices of Victor L. George ❶
Lewitt Hackman ❷
Liebeck Law, APC ❷
Magaña, Cathcart & McCarthy ❷
Mahoney Law Group, APC ❸
Mansell Mansell Ayala + Villaneda ❷
Mardirossian Akaragian LLP ❶
McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP ❶
Mendez & Sanchez, APC ❸
Mesriani Law Group ❷
My Bed Bug Lawyer ❷
Nelson & Fraenkel LLP ❶
Nguyen Theam Lawyers, LLP ❶
Olan Law ❸
Omega Law Group PC ❷
Owen, Patterson & Owen ❸
Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP ❶
Paul Mones PC ❶
Pocrass & De Los Reyes LLP ❶
Rafii & Associates, P.C. ❸
Rose, Klein & Marias LLP ❶
Rosen Saba, LLP ❶
Slater Slater Schulman, LLP ❸
Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson ❶
Stalwart Law Group ❶
State Law Firm ❸
Stolpman Law Group, LLP ❷
Stuart Law Firm, PC ❶
Taylor & Ring ❶
The Barnes Firm Injury Attorneys ❶
The Carlson Law Firm ❸
The deRubertis Law Firm, APC ❶
The Drexler Law Firm ❸
The Homampour Law Firm PLC ❶
The Jarchi Law Firm ❶
The Lanier Law Firm ❶
The Law Firm of Joseph H. Low IV ❸
The Law Office of Ronald M. Papell ❸
The Law Offices of Oscar H Gutierrez ❶
The Legal Reps, APLC ❸
The Simon Law Group ❶
The Wallace Firm ❶
Toberoff & Associates ❷
TorkLaw ❶
V. James DeSimone Law ❶
Vaziri Law Group, A.P.C. ❶
Waters Kraus Paul & Siegel ❶
Weissman Law Firm ❷
Wilshire Law Firm, PLC ❷
Wisner Baum, PC ❶
Yerushalmi Law Firm, APC ❸
Zukor and Nelson A Professional Corporation ❷
Privacy and Data Security Law
Baker McKenzie LLP ❶
Greenberg Traurig ❶
Polsinelli PC ❷
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP ❸
Squire Patton Boggs ❶
Private Funds / Hedge Funds Law
Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP ❷
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP ❶
Product LitigationLiability
- Defendants
Alston & Bird LLP ❶
Arnold & Porter ❶
Berkes Crane Santana & Spangler LLP ❶
Duane Morris LLP ❶
Liebeck Law, APC ❷
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. ❷
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP ❶
Peacock Piper Tong & Voss ❸
Perkins Coie LLP ❶
Polsinelli PC ❶
Reed Smith LLP ❷
Sidley Austin LLP ❶
Stolpman Law Group, LLP ❶
Tucker Ellis LLP ❶
Yoka | Smith, LLP ❶
Yukevich Cavanaugh ❶
Product Liability
Litigation - Plaintiffs
Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo LLP ❶
AlderLaw P.C. ❷
Arash Law ❶
Athea Trial Lawyers LLP ❷
Azizi Law Firm ❶
Balaban & Spielberger, LLP ❶
Baron & Budd, P.C. ❶
Boyle Law PC ❶
Chudacoff, Friedman, Simon, Graff & Cherin, LLP ❶
Dalimonte Rueb Stoller ❸
Dolan Law Firm PC ❶
Ellis Riccobono, LLP ❸
Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack ❶
Greene Broillet & Wheeler, LLP ❶
Inland Empire Work Injury law ❶
Judicate West ❷
Karns & Karns Personal Injury and Accident Attorneys ❸
Kennedy Wilshire PC ❸
Kiesel Law LLP ❷
Kirtland & Packard ❶
Knight Law Group, LLP ❷
Krissman & Silver LLP ❷
Lanzetta Law PC ❸
Law Office of Alexis Djivre ❷
Law Office of KD Griffin, PC ❷
Law Offices of David E. Wood ❸
Law Offices of Peter Q. Ezzell ❶
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP ❷
Liebeck Law, APC ❶
Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd, LLC ❶
McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP ❶
My Bed Bug Lawyer ❸
Nelson & Fraenkel LLP ❶
Nguyen Theam Lawyers, LLP ❶
Omega Law Group PC ❷
Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP ❶
Rose, Klein & Marias LLP ❷
Stolpman Law Group, LLP ❶
Taylor & Ring ❶
The Carlson Law Firm ❸
The Homampour Law Firm PLC ❶
The Margarian Law Firm ❶
The Ryan Law Group ❷
TorkLaw ❶
Wisner Baum, PC ❶
Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants
Halpern May Ybarra Gelberg LLP ❶
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP ❷
Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP ❶
Professional Malpractice Law - Plaintiffs
Law Offices of Michels & Lew ❷
Law Offices of Victor L. George ❶
Project Finance Law
Akin ❸
Latham & Watkins LLP ❶
McDermott Will & Emery ❷
Milbank LLP ❶
Railroad Law
Jones Day ❶
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP ❷
R. Edward Pfiester, A Law Corporation ❶
Real Estate Law
Akerman LLP ❷
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble
Mallory & Natsis LLP ❶
Alston & Bird LLP ❶
BakerHostetler ❸
Barnes & Thornburg LLP ❸
Blank Rome LLP ❸
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP ❸
Buchalter, A Professional Corporation ❸
Carlton Fields, P.A. ❷
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP ❶
Cozen O’Connor ❶
DLA Piper ❶
Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP ❷
Eisner, LLP ❸
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP ❷
Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP ❶
Feldman Law Group LLP ❷
Foley & Lardner LLP ❷
Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP ❶
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP ❶
Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro LLP ❶
Goodwin ❶
Gorman & Miller ❸
Greenberg Glusker LLP ❶
Greenberg Traurig ❶
Hanson Bridgett LLP ❶
Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozal, LLP ❷
Hill, Farrer & Burrill LLP ❶
Hogan Lovells US LLP ❷
Holland & Knight LLP ❶
Iaffaldano, Shaw and Young ❷
Irell & Manella LLP ❷
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP ❶
Katten ❶
Kennerly, Lamishaw & Rossi LLP ❶
Kirkland & Ellis LLP ❶
KMO Partners, LLP ❸
Knapp, Petersen & Clake P.C. ❷
Latham & Watkins LLP ❶
Law Offices of Juliana Stamato ❷
Leonard, Dicker & Schreiber LLP ❸
Locke Lord LLP ❶
Loeb & Loeb LLP ❶
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP ❶
Mayer Brown ❶
McDermott Will & Emery ❸
McGuireWoods LLP ❷
Michelman & Robinson, LLP ❷
Miller Barondess LLP ❷
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. ❶
Representing plaintiffs since 1992, the Law Office of Sc ott Righthand, P.C., litigates products liability and personal injury cases for people that have experienced catastrophic injuries or death. We are known by our peers as among the best of the best. Mr. Righthand has been selected for inclusion in the list of Northern California Super Lawyers® for 2007-202 2 ; The Best Lawyers in America® since 2009 in Medical Malpractice Plaintiffs and since 2011 in Personal Injury Plaintiffs; included in the Martindale Hubbell Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers for nearly 30 years; and is a proud member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We successfully litigate cases against the largest companies, manufacturers, employers, and hospitals.
Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP ❶
Nealey Law ❸
Outten & Golden LLP ❷
Quadra & Coll, LLP ❶
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ❶
Simmons Hanly Conroy LLP ❶
Skikos, Crawford, Skikos & Joseph, LLP ❷
Steven Williams Law, P.C. ❷
The Brandi Law Firm ❶
Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger ❶
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan ❶
Robert B. Morrill ❶
Sidley Austin LLP ❷
Tensegrity Law Group LLP ❶
Turner Boyd Seraphine ❶
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP ❷
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati ❷
Personal Injury Litigation
- Defendants
ADR Services, Inc. ❷
Buchalter, A Professional Corporation ❸
Representing plaintiffs since 1992, the Law Office of Sc ott Righthand, P.C., litigates products liability and personal injury cases for people that have experienced catastrophic injuries or death. We are known by our peers as among the best of the best. Mr. Righthand has been selected for inclusion in the list of Northern California Super Lawyers® for 2007-202 2 ; The Best Lawyers in America® since 2009 in Medical Malpractice Plaintiffs and since 2011 in Personal Injury Plaintiffs; included in the Martindale Hubbell Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers for nearly 30 years; and is a proud member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We successfully litigate cases against the largest companies, manufacturers, employers, and hospitals.
Representing plaintiffs since 1992, the Law Office of Scott Righthand, P.C. always located in downtown San Francisco, liitigates products liability, personal injury and medical negligence cases for people that have experienced catastrophic injuries or death. We are known by our peers as among the best of the best. Mr. Righthand has been selected for inclusion in the list of Northern California Super Lawyers® for 2007-2025; The Best Lawyers in America® since 2009 in Medical Malpractice Law - Plaintiffs and since 2011 in Personal Injury Litigation - Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs; Best Lawyers® 2020 “Lawyer of the Year”, San Francisco, Medical Malpractice Law - Plaintiffs; and is a proud member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We successfully litigate cases against the largest companies, manufacturers, employers, and hospitals.
Recent case examples include:
Media Law
Cydney A. Tune ❷
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP ❶
Jassy Vick Carolan LLP ❶
Mediation
ADR Services, Inc. ❷
Chao ADR, PC ❶
Farella Braun + Martel LLP ❷
Frank Burke Mediation and Arbitration PC ❷
JAMS ❶
Cesari Werner and Moriarty ❷
Farbstein & Blackman, APC ❶
Hassard Bonnington LLP ❶
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP ❶
Kern Segal & Murray, A Law Corporation ❶
Madden & Lynch ❶
Morrison Foerster ❶
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP ❸
Sidley Austin LLP ❶
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP ❶
Litigation - Securities
Alto Litigation PC ❷
Bergeson, LLP ❷
Berman Tabacco ❶
Covington & Burling LLP ❶
Farella Braun + Martel LLP ❶
Fenwick & West LLP ❶
Freshfields ❶
Girard Sharp LLP ❷
Gluck Daniel Atkinson LLP ❶
Goodwin ❷
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP ❶
Latham & Watkins LLP ❶
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP ❶
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius ❶
Morrison Foerster ❶
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ❶
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP ❷
Pillsbury ❸
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan ❸
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ❶
Ropes & Gray LLP ❷
Shartsis Friese LLP ❸
Sidley Austin LLP ❶
Vinson & Elkins LLP ❷
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP ❸
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP ❶
Litigation - Trusts and Estates
ADR Services, Inc. ❶
Barulich Dugoni Suttmann & Cummins Law Group, Inc. ❶
Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP ❶
Holland & Knight LLP ❷
Johnston, Kinney & Zulaica LLP ❶
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP ❷
Recent case examples include:
Recent case examples include:
■ Lithium ion battery fire causing deaths and burns
■ Lithium ion battery fire causing deaths and burns
■ Faulty RV design with no escapability causing deaths and life-altering burns
Lithium ion battery fire causing deaths and burns
■ Faulty RV design with no escapability causing deaths and life-altering burns
Faulty RV design with no escapability causing deaths and life-altering burns
■ Executive overwork and sleep deprivation at leading Fortune 500 firm leading to a deadly accident
Robert B. Morrill ❸
Ruth V. Glick ❶
Turitz Dispute Resolution ❶
Medical Malpractice
Law - Plaintiffs
Altair Law ❶
Personal InjuryLitigation - Plaintiffs
Abramson Smith Waldsmith, LLP ❶
Altair Law ❶
Arns Davis Law ❶
Audet & Partners LLP ❷
Bostwick & Peterson LLP ❶
Brady Law Group ❶
Campagnoli, Abelson & Campagnoli ❷
■ Executive overwork and sleep deprivation at leading Fortune 500 firm leading to a deadly accident
■ Catastrophic injuries and deaths from malpractice
Executive overwork and sleep deprivation at leading Fortune 500 firm leading to a deadly accident Motorcycle brake design failure causing brain injury/death
Hersh & Hersh A Professional Corporation ❸
Mitchell Leeds, LLP ❷
The Law Office of Scott Righthand, P.C. ❷
Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger ❶
Choulos Choulos & Wyle ❸
Coopers LLP ❷
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP ❶
Cutlip Law Office ❶
Danko Meredith ❶
David B. Baum ❷
■ Birth injury cases
Birth injury cases
■ Catastrophic injuries and deaths from malpractice
Catastrophic injuries and deaths from malpractice
Shartsis Friese LLP ❶
Skootsky & Der LLP ❸
Litigation and Controversy - Tax
Baker Botts L.L.P. ❷
Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP ❶
Foley & Lardner LLP ❷
Greenberg Traurig ❶
Law Offices of Stuart Lipton ❸
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ❷
Pillsbury ❶
Sideman & Bancroft LLP ❶
Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants
CMBG3 Law, LLC ❷
Cooley LLP ❸
Farella Braun + Martel LLP ❶
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP ❶
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP ❶
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP ❷
King & Spalding LLP ❶
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP ❶
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. ❸
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. ❶
Venable LLP ❶
Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP ❷
Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Plaintiffs
Altshuler Berzon LLP ❷
Andrus Anderson LLP ❶
Audet & Partners LLP ❷
Berman Tabacco ❶
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP ❶
David B. Baum ❷
Erickson Kramer Osborne LLP ❸
Evans Law Firm Inc. ❸
Girard Sharp LLP ❶
Hersh & Hersh A Professional Corporation ❶
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP ❶
Mergers and Acquisitions Law
A&O Shearman ❶
Arnold & Porter ❸
Fenwick & West LLP ❷
Hogan Lovells US LLP ❶
Morrison Foerster ❶
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ❷
Paul Hastings LLP ❶
Pillsbury ❶
Sidley Austin LLP ❷
Municipal Law
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP ❷
Mutual Funds Law
Dechert LLP ❷
Sidley Austin LLP ❶
Native American Law
Forman Shapiro & Rosenfeld ❶
Kaplan Kirsch LLP ❶
Natural Resources Law
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble
Mallory & Natsis LLP ❶
Briscoe Ivester & Bazel LLP ❶
Buchalter, A Professional Corporation ❷
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP ❶
Downey Brand LLP ❶
Farella Braun + Martel LLP ❶
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. ❸
Paul Hastings LLP ❸
Pillsbury ❷
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP ❶
Nonprofit / Charities Law
Adler & Colvin ❶
Farella Braun + Martel LLP ❶
Hanson Bridgett LLP ❸
Loeb & Loeb LLP ❷
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP ❶
Patent Law
Fenwick & West LLP ❶
Freitas & Weinberg LLP ❸
Goodwin ❶
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP ❶
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP ❷
King & Spalding LLP ❸
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius ❶
Morrison Foerster ❶
O’Melveny & Myers ❸
Dolan Law Firm PC ❶
Emergent ❸
Evans Law Firm Inc. ❸
Girard Sharp LLP ❷
Guy O. Kornblum, A Professional Law Corporation ❸
Law Office of Chuck Geerhart ❷
Law Office of Ted W. Pelletier ❷
Law Offices of Ara Jabagchourian, P.C. ❷
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP ❶
Liuzzi, Murphy, Solomon, Churton, Hale & Winnett LLP ❶
Mary Alexander & Associates, P.C. ❷
McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky ❶
Minami Tamaki LLP ❶
Nealey Law ❸
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC ❸
Rouda Feder Tietjen & McGuinn ❶
Scarlett Law Group ❷
Simmons Hanly Conroy LLP ❶
The Brandi Law Firm ❶
The Law Office of Scott Righthand, P.C. ❶
The Veen Firm, LLP ❶
Walker, Hamilton & Kearns, LLP ❷
Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger ❶ Wisner Baum, PC ❶
Private Funds / Hedge Funds Law
Goodwin ❶
K&L Gates LLP ❷
Product LitigationLiability - Defendants
ADR Services, Inc. ❷
CMBG3 Law, LLC ❷
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP ❶
King & Spalding LLP ❶
Leo J. Murphy ❷
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP ❸
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. ❶
Nixon Peabody LLP ❶
Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP ❶
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. ❶ Venable LLP ❸
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP ❷
Winston & Strawn LLP ❶
Product Liability
Litigation - Plaintiffs
Altair Law ❶
Audet & Partners LLP ❸
Bogaards Law LLP ❷
Brady Law Group ❶
Choulos Choulos & Wyle ❶
David B. Baum ❸
Dolan Law Firm PC ❶
Girard Sharp LLP ❸
Hersh & Hersh A Professional Corporation ❷
Law Office of Ted W. Pelletier ❷
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP ❶
Liuzzi, Murphy, Solomon, Churton, Hale & Winnett LLP ❷
Rouda Feder Tietjen & McGuinn ❶
Simmons Hanly Conroy LLP ❶
The Brandi Law Firm ❶
The Veen Firm, LLP ❶
Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger ❶
Wisner Baum, PC ❷
Public Finance Law
Jones Hall ❸
Nixon Peabody LLP ❷
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP ❶
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ❶
Real Estate Law
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble
Mallory & Natsis LLP ❶
ArentFox Schiff LLP ❶
Buchalter, A Professional Corporation ❶
Burke Williams & Sorensen LLP ❶
Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP ❶
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP ❶
Duane Morris LLP ❸
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP ❸
Farella Braun + Martel LLP ❶
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP ❶
Goodwin ❶
Greenberg Traurig ❷
Holland & Knight LLP ❷
J. Abrams Law, P.C. ❷
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP ❷
Jones Day ❶
Law Office of David B. Roseman ❷
Lubin Olson & Niewiadomski LLP ❶
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP ❶
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. ❶
Paul Hastings LLP ❶
Perkins Coie LLP ❶
Pillsbury ❶
Polsinelli PC ❷
Real Estate Law Group, LLP ❷
Reed Smith LLP ❸
Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP ❷
Seyfarth Shaw LLP ❸
Shartsis Friese LLP ❶
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP ❶
SSL Law Firm, LLP ❷
Venable LLP ❸
Securities / Capital Markets Law
Arnold & Porter ❶
Cooley LLP ❶
Fenwick & West LLP ❶
Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian, LLP ❶
Keesal, Young & Logan ❷
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP ❸
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius ❷
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ❶
Pearson Warshaw, LLP ❸
Pillsbury ❶
Woodside Counsel, PC ❷
Securities Regulation
Cooley LLP ❶
Fenwick & West LLP ❸
Halloran Farkas + Kittila LLP ❷
Sidley Austin LLP ❶
Securitization and Structured Finance Law
Chapman and Cutler LLP ❶
Dentons U.S. LLP ❸
Holland & Knight LLP ❶
McGuireWoods LLP ❶
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP ❷
Tax Law
Adler & Colvin ❶
Buchalter, A Professional Corporation ❷
Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP ❶
Farella Braun + Martel LLP ❶
Fox Rothschild LLP ❶
Greenberg Traurig ❶
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP ❸
Law Offices of David B. Porter ❷
Law Offices of Stuart Lipton ❸
Loeb & Loeb LLP ❶
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP ❶
McDermott Will & Emery ❶
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius ❶
Morrison Foerster ❷
Nixon Peabody LLP ❷
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ❶
Pillsbury ❶
Shartsis Friese LLP ❶
Sideman & Bancroft LLP ❷
Weller Partners LLP ❷
Wood LLP ❸
Technology Law
Fenwick & West LLP ❶
Goodwin ❶
Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian, LLP ❷
Trademark Law
DLA Piper ❶
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP ❷
Fenwick & West LLP ❶
Haynes and Boone, LLP ❷
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP ❶
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius ❶
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ❶
Reed Smith LLP ❶
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP ❸
Sideman & Bancroft LLP ❶
Sidley Austin LLP ❸
Tactical Law Group LLP ❶
Verso Law Group LLP ❷
Transportation Law
Holland & Knight LLP ❶
Kennedys ❷
Trusts and Estates
Adler & Colvin ❶
Bancroft & McAlister LLP ❸
Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP ❶
Farella Braun + Martel LLP ❶
Friedman McCubbin Law Group LLP ❶
Hanson Bridgett LLP ❷
Law Office of Charlotte Ito ❸
Loeb & Loeb LLP ❶
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP ❷
McDermott Will & Emery ❶
Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP ❸
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ❷
Perkins Coie LLP ❷
Shartsis Friese LLP ❶
Sideman & Bancroft LLP ❶
Skootsky & Der LLP ❷
Utilities Law
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP ❸
Downey Brand LLP ❷
Nossaman LLP ❶
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP ❶
Venture Capital Law
Cooley LLP ❷
Goodwin ❶
Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian, LLP ❶
