Hill, Farrer & Burrill LLP

  • Established in 1923
  • Firm Size 41
  • Profile Visibility [ i ]
    • #46 in weekly profile views out of 4,830 Law Firms in Los Angeles, CA
    • #7,848 in weekly profile views out of 314,938 total law firms Overall
Attorney Awards
About Attorney Awards

Litigation

Hill, Farrer & Burrill LLP's litigation practice encompasses many types of litigation, including corporate and partnership disputes, insurance issues, intellectual property, trade secret, tort, employment, real property, eminent domain, bankruptcy, commercial lease disputes, and other complex commercial litigation for clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to individuals.

As a result of our long history, Hill Farrer has many long-term clients who are sometimes plaintiffs and other times defendants. As a result, we have no bias toward or against the prosecution or defense of claims, but focus on prevailing for our clients through cost-effective litigation and trial.

Our highly competent and well regarded trial lawyers regularly try cases in federal and state courts, before administrative tribunals and arbitration panels. Some of these cases are “bet the company” cases. Because of our experience and track record in actually trying cases, we are able to obtain the best possible settlement result when the opportunity arises, and always seeking creative and practical solutions to resolve disputes on behalf of our clients.

Representative Matters

  • Defended national railroad company in a suit brought by a public water agency.  The agency intended to build a canal intertie that crossed tracks owned by the railroad.  The agency contended that its rights to the land were superior and that the railroad was required to either relocate its operations, or pay millions of dollars for the additional cost to tunnel the canal beneath the tracks as opposed to having an open channel canal on the surface of the land.  Obtained a complete defense verdict at trial. 
  • Represented a staffing company in the prosecution of a federal RICO case involving claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, Lanham Act violations, etc.  Defeated an eight-figure counterclaim on summary judgment and obtained a favorable settlement. 
  • Represented plaintiffs in a federal case involving claims for breach of contract in connection with the sale of a bushing manufacturer to a large, publicly-traded company.  Defeated an eight-figure counterclaim on summary judgment and obtained a seven-figure judgment, including attorneys’ fees.  Successfully defended the judgment in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. 
  • Prosecuted and defended numerous state and federal cases involving claims for misappropriation of trade secrets by employers against former employees.  These cases often involve seeking or resisting temporary restraining orders and injunctions. 
  • Represented governmental entity in two projects and the acquisition of more than twenty property interests surrounding the projects.  Handled all aspects of the condemnation, from the City Council adoption of the Resolutions of Necessity and attendance at City Council meetings, through the preparation and filing of the many eminent domain actions, successfully opposing demurrers to the eminent domain complaints, obtaining orders for immediate possession that were heavily contested by property owners, and through judgment and final orders of condemnation. 
  • Prosecuted claim for reimbursement of all harbor maintenance taxes imposed on beer manufacturer as unconstitutional. Pabst Brewing Co. v. United States, U.S. Court of International Trade Case No. 96-01-00154 (1999) 
  • Summa Corp. v. California Ex Rel. State Lands Commission, 466 U.S. 198 (1984):  Represented owner of real property in defense of claims by the City of Los Angeles and the State of California to the effect that the property was subject to a public trust easement for navigation, commerce and fisheries. 
  • Trope v. Katz 11 Cal.4th 274, 292 (1995):  Represented the Los Angeles County Bar Association as amicus curiae in a case involving the recoverability of contractual attorneys’ fees by a law firm that represented itself in the litigation. 
  • Dawn Investment Co., Inc. v. Superior Court 30 Cal.3d 695 (1982):  Represented an institutional lender as amicus curiae in a case involving the enforceability of a “due on sale” clause in the wake of Wellenkamp v. Bank of America.

People (41)

0 Applied Filters
Refine Results
Of Counsel
No Reviews

Business Litigation, Real Estate Litigation, Construction Litigation, Mediation View More

Partner
No Reviews

Real Estate Transactions

Partner
No Reviews

Business Litigation, Real Estate Litigation, Eminent Domain, Inverse Condemnation, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Professional Liability View More

Partner
No Reviews

Labor and Employment Law

Of Counsel
No Reviews

Trade Secret, Copyright and Trademark Litigation, Unfair Competition, Legal Malpractice Defense, General Civil Litigation in State and Federal Courts View More

Partner
No Reviews

Business

Partner
No Reviews

Creditor, Bankruptcy, Business Litigation

Of Counsel
No Reviews

Appeals, Land Use Law, Zoning Law, Eminent Domain Law, Real Estate View More

Peer Reviews

5.0/5.0 (35 reviews)
  • Legal Knowledge

    5.0/5.0
  • Analytical Capability

    5.0/5.0
  • Judgment

    5.0/5.0
  • Communication

    5.0/5.0
  • Legal Experience

    5.0/5.0
  • 5.0/5.0 Review for Brian Weinhart by a Partner on 03/06/13 in Real Estate

    I have worked with Brian Weinhart many times since about 2004. He is an exceptionally gifted lawyer: smart, quick, well-versed in the law, honest and keeps his word. He has no negatives. He is at the top of the profession.

  • 5.0/5.0 Review for Brian Weinhart by a Member on 02/26/13 in Commercial Real Estate

    Mr. Weinhart is a highly regarded, well known attorney in the commercial real estate and finance industry, with a wealth of knowledge, experience, and deep understanding of substantive real estate legal and related issues and an unsurpassed ability t... Read more

    Read more
Peer reviews submitted prior to 2008 are not displayed.

Client Reviews Write a Review

Diversity

It is the Firm’s policy to recognize and promote diversity in its business dealings with clients, staff, and the greater legal community.  We are committed to enhancing the opportunities of women, people of color, and others who have been traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession to participate meaningfully in the practice of law and management of the firm.  We view our commitment to diversity as an ongoing, important, and worthwhile initiative that is consistent with our being a major  law firm in such a culturally diverse region as Los Angeles County.

Our dedication to diversity begins with the law schools at which we recruit, and extends to the hiring of staff and the selection of qualified partners and firm managers to run the day-to-day affairs of the firm.   We maintain a strong Equal Employment Policy and are proud of our long history of operating a law practice in which attorneys and staff feel welcomed and appreciated.  We intend to continue demonstrating the importance of diversity to the firm by sponsoring continuing education programs devoted to expanding opportunities for women and minorities in the legal field, participating in bar activities that recognize and promote diversity, and engaging in other activities in the community which foster and recognize the importance of diversity in our society.

Location

Contact Hill, Farrer & Burrill LLP

Required Fields

Required Fields


By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.