The Stanzler Law Group
2275 E. Bayshore Rd., Suite 100
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 739-0200

 
 
PRACTICE AREAS
 
 

APPEALS

Jordan Stanzler has been practicing law since 1972, both as a trial and appellate lawyer. He has extensive jury trial experience and has argued over fifty appeals in courts around the country.

He graduated from Harvard University with a cum laude in English, from the University of Chicago Law School, where he as an editor of the law review, and from the New York University Law School , where he received an L.L.M. in Taxation.

He began his legal career as a civil rights lawyer with the Employment Law Center is San Francisco ; then spent five years working on a landmark class action on behalf of women faculty members challenging university-wide procedures in hiring, promotion, and tenure at Brown University . See Lamphere v. Brown University , 553 F. 2d 714 (1 st Cir. 1977)

From 1982-1988 he was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York and Chief of the Tax Unit in 1987-88, working with U.S. Attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani. During that time he prosecuted high profile criminal tax matters such as U.S. v. Atkins, 869 F. 2d 135 ( 2d Cir. 1989).

From 1988-1999 he was partner in Anderson Kill & Olick, a New York-based firm that specialized in representing corporations in insurance coverage disputes nationwide.

That experience led him back to California where he founded the firm of Stanzler, Funderburk & Castellon LLP, with offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco , California . He continues to practice complex civil litigation at the trial and appellate level.

He started writing law review articles in his second year of law school and has continued writing ever since, publishing several articles each year. He is co-author the treatise, Insurance Coverage Litigation (Aspen Publishers 2006).

His work as an appellate attorney grows out of his experience as a trial lawyer. His goal is to make an appellate brief, and oral argument, as simple, compelling, and interesting as possible, especially in the most complex and technical cases.

COMPLETED APPEAL: We successfully reversed the Superior Court of San Diego County in this complicated case involving the right of an additional  insured to insurance coverage for environmental liabilities. We were working with fragments of a form insurance policy issued to a tenant named Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. who stored fireworks in underground bunkers on property owned by our clients, which was later sold to the County of San Bernardino. Years later, the County brought a lawsuit for massive contamination of the groundwater resulting from the release of chemicals at the site. The Superior Court found that there was no coverage because the policy did not specifically mention our client by name or by the location in question. In an uphill challenge to obtain a reversal, we successfully argued on appeal that the policy, when read as a whole, provided coverage for the owner of the property where the fireworks were stored. Our briefs explained the coverage to the court from both a technical and common sense approach -- arguments the Court of Appeal adopted. Click Here for more.


PENDING APPEALS

Ameron International Corp. v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania , et al

2130 Leavenworth St. Homeowners Ass'n v. State Farm Insurance Co.

SAMPLE REPORTED APPEALS

Watts Industries, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Co., 121 Cal. App. 4 th 1029 (2004)

Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Superior Court, 326 F. 3d 817 (7th Cir. 2003)

Yeroushalmi v. Miramar Sheraton, 88 Cal. App. 4 th 738 (2001)

Hoechst Celanese v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London , 673 A.2d 164 (Delaware Supreme Court 1996)

Hoechst Celanese v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London , 656 A.2d 1094 (Delaware Supreme Court 1995)

Maryland Casualty Co. v. W.R. Grace and Co., 23 F.3d 617 (2d Cir. 1993)

Bausch & Lomb v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co., 330 Md. 758 (Maryland Court of Appeals 1993)

U.S. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 899 F. 2d 143 (2d Cir. 1990).

U.S. v. Atkins, 869 F. 2d 135 (2d Cir. 1989)

Herbert v. United States , 850 F. 2d 32 (2d Cir. 1988)

Panichi v. U.S. , 834 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1987)

Abrams v. United States , 797 F. 2d 100 (2d Cir. 1986)

Sepulveda v. Block, 782 F. 2d 363 (2d Cir. 1986)

Lynch v. U.S. Parole Commission, 768 F. 491 (2d Cir. 1985)

Rosenbluth Trading, Inc. v. United States, 736 F. 2d 43 (2d Cir. 1984)

Pike v. United States , 723 F. 2d 232 (2d Cir. 1983)

Caplin v. United States , 718 F. 2d 544 (2d Cir. 1983)

Lamphere v. Brown University , 553 F. 2d 714 (1 st Cir. 1977)

Stadium Films, Inc. v. Baillargeon, 542 F. 2d 577 (1st Cir. 1976)

WHY A NEW LAWYER ON APPEAL?

In the overwhelming majority of cases, the lawyer who handles the trial also handles the appeal. I've done that throughout my career, with great success. But there are

many circumstances where it is a good idea to bring in a new attorney to handle the appeal. I've done that, too. Sometimes a new "set of eyes" may bring a new perspective, may have new ideas, or may be more objective. Sometimes a new lawyer can make arguments in a way that the trial lawyer cannot. It all depends upon the fact and circumstances of a particular case

FEES

The fee charged will depend upon the nature and complexity of the case. I will charge either a flat fee, or bill by the hour. In an exceptional case I may work on a contingency basis.

Many clients prefer a flat fee because it gives certainty to the cost of the appeal. The flat fee includes all legal work, such as research, writing, and oral argument. It does not include filing fees, the cost of ordering transcripts, and travel expenses. The flat fee is normally payable in advance, to be held in a client trust fund. The fee will not be paid out until the brief is filed.

INITIAL CONSULTATION AND ASSESSMENT

There is no charge for an initial consultation (by phone or in person) to discuss the case. There may be a modest charge if the client asks for an initial evaluation of the case, such as a review of the decisions in the trial court, the grounds for appeal; the prospects of winning on appeal, or the like.

 
Website Designed by
360 Web Designs
360 Web Designs
All materials copyright 1999- by Stanzler Law Group. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer : These materials have been prepared by Stanzler Law Group for informational purposes only and are not legal advice.
This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Internet subscribers and
online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. [ADMIN]