Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership including Professional Corporations
Size of Organization: 540
Year Established: 1927Web Site: http://www.sheppardmullin.com
|Profile Visibility |
#22 in weekly profile views out of 279,504 total law firms Overall
|Antitrust Law||Bankruptcy Law|
|Commercial Litigation||General Practice|
|Health Care Law||Labor and Employment Law|
|Land Use Law||Patent, Trademark, Copyright and Unfair Competition|
|Real Estate Law||Securities Law|
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton's founding partners began the firm in Los Angeles in 1927 with the simple blueprint of providing superior client service and legal counseling. Sheppard Mullin attorneys continue to respond rapidly to ever-changing business and legal environments with creative, cost-effective and practical solutions. The firm's philosophy is to staff matters with experienced, effective, results-oriented attorneys who recognize that availability, accessibility and responsiveness to our clients is fundamental.
Martindale-Hubbell has augmented a firm's provided information with third-party sourced data to present a more comprehensive overview of the firm's expertise:
U.S. Federal Litigation Activity
Highest number of cases by Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP:
Other Statutory Actions (97 cases in past two years)
U.S. Patent Activity
Total number of U.S. granted patents by Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP:
174 (in past two years)
Peer Review Ratings
Total number of Peer Review Rated lawyers of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP:
What is This?
Total number of Client Reviews for Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP:
Documents by Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP on Martindale.com
California Supreme Court Limits Application of Commissioned Employee Exemption
Thomas R. Kaufman,Anna M. Stancu, July 24, 2014
On July 14, 2014, the California Supreme Court held in Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. that employees qualify for the California “commissioned employee” exemption in a pay period only if they receive “earnings [that] exceed one and one-half (1-1/2) times the minimum wage”...
Delaware Court of Chancery Rejects Indemnification Sleight of Hand
Thomas Michael,Ariel Yehezkel, July 24, 2014
In Branin v. Stein Roe Inv. Counsel, LLC, C.A. 8481-VCN, 2014 WL 2961084 (Del. Ch. June 30, 2014), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that a vested right to indemnification may not be rescinded by a subsequent amendment to the governing corporate document.
Top 10 Appearances for Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP on Martindale.com