Results Oriented Litigation Services.
About Us
Not All Lawyers And Law Firms Are Alike
The Walsh Firm PC doesn't take on just any case. We have narrowed our litigation practice to certain types of cases - cases in which we have developed an efficiency and expertise that gives our clients a distinct advantage in court. If we take on your case, you can rest assured that we know the law, we will learn the facts, and we will give you representation that is both effective and cost-effective.
.JPG/:/rs=w:1209,h:605,cg:true,m/cr=w:1209,h:605)
Do You Prefer Quality or Quantity?
We once had a defendant file a quarter-inch thick brief, supported by a three-foot tall pile of supporting evidence as to why our clients' case should be summarily thrown out of court. In less than a day, we reviewed it all, identified the fatal defect in their argument, and drafted a five-page rebuttal. The visual contrast between the two filings was stunning, so we took a picture. Our work is on the left. We prevailed, and the case later settled for seven figures. We're quite sure that the defense firm made more money in fees than we did, but we were more interested in getting great results for our client.
If You Want Justice, You Have To Fight For It
That's what we do for you. If someone is out to cheat you or deny you what's right, fight back with the Walsh Firm. Contact us for a free phone consultation. Let us help you figure out your best next steps are. The sooner you have a plan of action, the better your chances of taking the right steps to get the results you want and deserve.
Our $2.5 Million Dollar Attention to Detail
How we won in the trial court and made the win appeal-proof.
One Monday morning in 2002, we had an important hearing in Orange County Superior Court. In what was, at the time, our biggest case, the defendant had filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to compel arbitration. When we saw the tentative ruling, we were elated. DENY. DENY. After oral argument, the judge's tentative ruling would stand. "Submit a proposed order," the judge told us. Time to pop the champagne, right? Not exactly.
During oral argument, the judge had made a comment from the bench that sounded like a reinforcement of how strong our position was, but actually suggested that the judge had erred by failing to consider something that was important. He had told the parties that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable, and he didn't have the authority to just cross out the illegal parts and enforce the rest. "It’s called blue penciling," the judge said. "It’s called severance; but I think it’s an improper use of a validly illegal document."
That was a problem. He did have the discretion to "blue pencil" the illegal parts of the arbitration agreement, IF it those parts could be taken out without having to rewrite other parts of the arbitration agreement or replace the stricken parts with new language. We knew that the Court of Appeal understood that subtle but important distinction. Ergo, if the case was appealed, they might have just remanded the case back to the trial court and make the judge consider whether blue penciling some language would suffice to save the arbitration agreement.
So we got started on the proposed order. When we got to the part about being unable to just strike the unlawful provisions and enforce the rest, we had the proposed order say that the judge knew he had the authority to sever the offending language, but having considered that option, he chose not to in this case, for exactly the right reasons:
“Further, the Court finds that substantively unconscionable provisions pervade the DRP such that severing said terms would go beyond mere excision to rewriting the subject document, which is not the proper role for the Court.”
We were hopeful that the judge would see that language and realize that it was appropriate to include in his written order. He did. We breathed a sigh of relief. More than a year later, as Michael Walsh faced questions from Justice Sills during oral arguments, we found out that we were right to have worried about it. "Mr. Walsh," he asked, "the trial court's remarks during oral argument indicated that he never even considered whether the agreement could be saved by striking the unlawful provisions. We shouldn't we remand this case back to the trial court to complete that part of the analysis?"
"Because he did, in fact, make that analysis, and he correctly chose not to blue pencil the agreement because severing those terms would have required him to rewrite the parties' deal."
"Where, in the record, does it show that he did this?" Justice Sills asked.
"In the written order," he responded. "And not only does that take precedence over any arguably contrary statements made from the bench, but if you look at the rest of the order, you can see that the trial court crossed out some of the other proposed language. He didn't just rubber-stamp what we submitted. He read it carefully, and kept the parts he wanted to include in his order, and discarded any parts he didn't think accurately reflected his decision."
Weeks later, when the Court of Appeal issued their opinion, it became clear that this was THE money moment of this multi-million dollar case. Not only that, but the Court of Appeal was so impressed with the way we dealt with the issue that they began their ruling by saying that our "adroit lawyering" had saved the case. "If counsel had left matters there, we would have to reverse, to give the judge the opportunity to exercise his discretion", the opinion read. But "the actual order which counsel prepared ... shows that the judge did exercise discretion in choosing not to sever the offending clause" and because of this, "the order refusing to sever must be upheld."
The Result?
We avoided what could have been a two-year delay or worse, a reversal that would have sent us to arbitration on an individual basis only, with no possibility of pursuing claims on behalf of the full class of underpaid employees. Thousands of hard-working restaurant workers would have been shut out.
After winning the appeal, not only were we able to proceed as a class action, but the defendant increase its settlement offer from $3 million to $5.5 million. That increased every single class member's recovery by 83%.
We sweat every detail not because it looks good. We do it because it puts more money in our clients' pockets.