Laurie Hepler is a leading San Francisco appellate lawyer, who collaborates with clients to address all aspects of the appellate process objectively and strategically. For over 30 years, Laurie has helped trial counsel, corporate counsel, insurers and individuals keep their wins, reverse their losses, and develop the law. Successful first- and second-chair trial experience back up her appellate expertise.
Clients retain Laurie in state and federal courts throughout California and the U.S. She has briefed and argued countless California appeals, including three California Supreme Court wins, and has argued in the highest courts of two other states and several federal circuits.
Laurie has been honored with two prestigious California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (“CLAY”) Awards, in 2000 and 2013. She has been certified as an Appellate Specialist by the State Bar of California every five years since 2005, and is ranked by Chambers and Partners USA for California Appellate Law. In 2023-24, Laurie served as President of the highly selective California Academy of Appellate Lawyers, and in 2020 she was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers.
Her clients’ appellate matters span a wide range of subjects, including insurance coverage, employment, product liability, contract disputes, personal jurisdiction, and unfair competition. But the subject counts less than the forum: appellate courts know Laurie, and she knows them.
She is Contributing Editor for the leading treatise on California appeals—Eisenberg, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group).
Laurie’s community service includes serving on the Board of Trustees of her synagogue, and making weekend meals for Samaritan House. From 2016 to 2022, she led a large mealmaking team that produced over 30,000 meals.
Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1130
Won Statewide Precedent
Won Statewide Precedent
Decision settled two major issues simmering for decades: (1) To state a claim for tortious interference with an at-will contract, a plaintiff must plead and prove an independently wrongful act; and (2) California’s statutory prohibition on contract provisions restraining trade—when applied to one business restraining another—is subject to the same rule of reason analysis prescribed by antitrust common law.
O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335
Won Statewide Precedent
Won Statewide Precedent
Leading the briefing and oral argument in a case watched nationwide, Laurie won a ruling foreclosing strict liability and negligence liability (in most circumstances) for a manufacturer that did not make or sell an injury-causing product foreseeably used with its own. Laurie won a related precedent in Maine in 2016, Grant v. Foster Wheeler.
Lorch v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1266
Invalidated a County Court Rule
Invalidated a County Court Rule
A San Diego judge rejected our client’s peremptory challenge, tried the case, and entered judgment against her. Laurie filed a writ petition challenging those proceedings, as well as the legitimacy of a Local Rule authorizing them. She won a precedent (1) vacating the judgment, (2) disqualifying the judge, and (3) invalidating the Local Rule as an unlawful attempt to evade CCP section 170.6.
RLI Insurance Co. v. CNA Casualty of Cal. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 75
Established New Law
Established New Law
RLI held that an excess insurer cannot sue a primary carrier in subrogation for bad-faith refusal to settle, where the underlying claim was not tried and the insured suffered no excess judgment. Laurie persuaded Division 2 of the Second District to reject Division 1’s contrary precedent.
PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084
Won Statewide Precedent
Won Statewide Precedent
Over 1000 opinions have cited PLCM Group, in which Laurie established that companies represented by in-house counsel can recover contractual attorney fees, and that reasonable market rates control the award.
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.