Kent Richland has been an appellate lawyer since he graduated from UCLA Law School in 1971. In 1983, Kent was one of the founding partners of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
Kent has been lead appellate counsel in hundreds of appeals. He has argued in state and federal appellate courts across the country, including many high-profile cases in both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. He gained national prominence in 2006 for his United States Supreme Court argument in Marshall v. Marshall, in which he successfully represented the late Anna Nicole Smith.
Kent is a frequent lecturer and author on appellate law topics and is co-author, with Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline of the California Court of Appeal, of West’s California Litigation Forms B Civil Appeals and Writs. He has served as president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers and multiple terms as president of the California Supreme Court Historical Society. He was selected as a Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, the American Bar Foundation and the Litigation Counsel of America.
Among the honors he has received are the California Lawyer Magazine’s California Lawyer of the Year award in 2007, 2010 and 2019, Best Lawyers®’ Los Angeles Appellate Lawyer of the Year Award in 2015, multiple years’ recognition by the Los Angeles Daily Journal as one of the top 100 lawyers in California, multiple years’ recognition as one of the top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers and recognition by Chambers USA as one of five “Band One” appellate lawyers in California.
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 59
Groundbreaking Decision on Arbitration and Legal Ethics
Groundbreaking Decision on Arbitration and Legal Ethics
Following a unanimous reversal of judgment against GMSR’s client in the Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court held that broad, nonspecific waiver of current and future conflicts of interest in attorney engagement letter is not valid and makes entire contract between attorney and client illegal. Attorney not entitled to contractual fees earned during conflicting representation, and arbitration clause in contract not enforceable because of contract illegality.
City of Ontario v. Quon (2010) 560 U.S. 746
This is the first case in more than two decades in which the Court has considered how the Fourth Amendment applies in a government workplace.
This is the first case in more than two decades in which the Court has considered how the Fourth Amendment applies in a government workplace.
The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Ontario Police Department’s review of text messages sent and received by a SWAT team officer on his department-issued pager did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. This is the first case in more than two decades in which the Court has considered how the Fourth Amendment applies in a government workplace.
Marshall v. Marshall (2006) 547 U.S. 293
Seminal Case on Federal Court Jurisdiction
Seminal Case on Federal Court Jurisdiction
Healing a four-way split among the federal circuit courts, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the probate exception to federal jurisdiction should be narrowly construed to apply only to the actual probate of a will or administration of a probate estate.
Batchelder v. Kawamoto (9th Cir. 1998) 147 F.3d 915
Landmark Decision on Securities Law
Landmark Decision on Securities Law
Deciding issue of first impression, Ninth Circuit holds that shareholder derivative action brought by U.S. shareholder of Japanese corporation is governed by substantive law of Japan, not law of United States.
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.