Jeffrey Raskin argued and won his first appellate case even before graduating from law school—a First Amendment case before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Since then, Jeff’s career has focused on appellate law, including a clerkship with the Honorable Raymond C. Fisher of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and more.
Reflecting his broad range of substantive legal experience, Jeff has been twice honored with the prestigious California Lawyer Attorney of The Year (CLAY) Award in two vastly different types of cases. He received his first CLAY Award for his California Supreme Court win that fundamentally altered the way that wills have been interpreted since King Henry VIII. He received his second CLAY Award for his win in a landmark and closely-watched California Supreme Court case that established critical principles regarding both arbitration law and attorney ethics. Through these cases and many more, Jeff has earned a reputation for thinking outside of the box and crafting unique appellate arguments in tough-to-win cases.
Jeff assists clients, their trial counsel and in-house counsel in a wide array of appellate matters, with an emphasis on business disputes and trusts and estate matters. Jeff also has extensive experience representing clients in appeals that present the full range of issues related to arbitration, including enforcement of arbitration agreements and the confirmation or vacatur of arbitration awards.
Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1
GMSR persuades California Supreme Court that economic loss rule doesn’t bar all fraudulent concealment claims between contracting parties
GMSR persuades California Supreme Court that economic loss rule doesn’t bar all fraudulent concealment claims between contracting parties
The California Supreme Court resolved a split of authority, holding that a plaintiff can assert a fraudulent concealment claim based on conduct occurring during a contractual relationship if (1) “the elements of the claim can be established independently of the parties’ contractual rights and obligations,” and (2) “the tortious conduct exposes the plaintiff to a risk of harm beyond the reasonable contemplation of the parties when they entered into the contract.”
Jolie v. Superior Court (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1025
Private judges have a continuing obligation to disclose new matters involving opposing counsel
Private judges have a continuing obligation to disclose new matters involving opposing counsel
Representing Jolie, GMSR successfully petitioned for mandamus relief in the Court of Appeal. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal held that the private judge owed a continuing obligation to disclose new matters involving opposing counsel as they arose. The judge’s disclosed prior history of being retained by opposing counsel did not excuse his failure to disclose new retentions.
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.
© 2025 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90048
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
© 2025 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
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.
VCARD
