Jeffrey E. Raskin
VCARD
Biography
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.
High-Impact Wins
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 59
Groundbreaking Decision on Arbitration and Legal Ethics
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 59
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.
Rice v. Downs (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1213
Won Reversal
Rice v. Downs (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1213
Won Reversal
An LLC member brought suit alleging that another member (an attorney) had breached his fiduciary duty and committed legal malpractice. The trial court ordered those claims to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision in the LLC’s operating agreement, which required arbitration of all claims “arising out of” the agreement. After arbitration, the plaintiff appealed, arguing that his claims were not arbitrable under the terms of the arbitration provision. GMSR represented that plaintiff on appeal. Although California law strongly favors finding claims within the scope of an arbitration agreement, the Court of Appeal adopted GMSR’s narrow interpretation of the intended scope of arbitrable claims and reversed the order compelling arbitration, which in large part was based on a comparison between the language of the arbitration provision and a substantially broader jurisdictional provision.
Estate of Duke (2015) 61 Cal.4th 871
Made New Law
Estate of Duke (2015) 61 Cal.4th 871
Made New Law
From time immemorial, courts throughout the United States have been powerless to correct drafting mistakes in wills no matter how clearly the evidence established the testator’s actual intent. Courts could use the doctrine of reformation to correct such mistakes in all other documents, including other probate alternatives such as trusts. But wills were historically treated differently. GMSR represented two charities before the California Supreme Court, convincing the high Court to review the case and to chart a new course in will reformation. In a detailed decision, the Supreme Court held that will reformation is now available when a mistake is established by clear and convincing evidence.
Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1263 (amicus)
Won Reversal
Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1263 (amicus)
Won Reversal
The trial court ordered a party’s former attorney to answer deposition questions over objections of attorney-client and work product privileges. Fireman’s Fund sought a writ of mandate, arguing that the court had misconstrued the scope of the attorney-client privilege. Representing several bar associations as amicus curiae, Mr. Raskin argued that the real problem was the trial court’s erroneous understanding of the work product privilege, which should extend to an attorney’s unwritten impressions, opinions and research, despite arguably contrary language in a California statute. The Court of Appeal agreed with Mr. Raskin’s approach and issued a writ of mandate.
Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1413
Made New Law
Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1413
Made New Law
In this series of arbitration-related appeals, Mr. Raskin first obtained affirmance of an $8 million arbitration award, defeating arguments on a host of issues ranging from whether the arbitrator should have recused himself to whether the award decided unsubmitted issues, was rationally related to the parties’ contract, and was timely. The resulting decision is noteworthy for its extensive collection and detailed discussion of a broad range of issues pertaining to arbitration law. After remand, GMSR’s client learned that the defendant companies had transferred nearly of their assets to related companies and to a family trust that owned the companies. The trial court denied trial counsel’s motion to add these entities and the companies’ manager as judgment debtors. In yet another published decision in this matter, the Court of Appeal reversed—holding that a judgment could be amended to add alter egos even though that alter ego had prevailed on unrelated claims in the underlying arbitration and that alter ego liability applies equally to trustees.
Publications
Speaking and Involvement
Professional Associations
© 2024 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Los Angeles
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90048
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
San Francisco
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
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.