Andrew A. Servais

Andrew A. Servais: Attorney with Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Juskie LLP


Andrew represents and counsels local businesses, attorneys and law firms in pre-litigation matters, multi-week jury trials, bench trials and arbitrations along with resulting appeals having argued several times before the 1st and 2nd Divisions of the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

Andrew’s extensive litigation experience allows him to quickly and efficiently analyze legal issues facing his clients to provide his clients with the information necessary to assess the costs/benefits of proceeding at every stage of litigation.

Andrew has obtained dozens of pre-trial dismissals of claims through summary judgment, non-suit and California’s Anti-SLAPP statute with resulting attorney fee awards well in excess of six-figures on behalf of his clients.

Prior to entering law school, Andrew worked as an aide to former congressman James Gibbons (NV) in Washington, D.C.


•Obtained $33.7 million verdict featured in Daily Journal’s Top Verdicts of 2015
•San Diego Business Journal Best of the Bar 2014, 2015
•Southern California Super Lawyers (2018-2019); Rising Star (2015-2017)


•Annual Fair Housing Law & Litigation Conference: Co-presenter with Richard Painter, former Chief Ethics Lawyer in the George W. Bush White House, on Current Ethics Issues
•Riverside County Bar Association, California Western School of Law, San Diego Legal Aid Society: “The New Rules Are Here: What is New and Does Anything Stay the Same?”
•San Diego Bar Association, Real Property Law Section: Ethics and Best Practices in Real Estate Transactions and Litigation: Protect your Bar Card and Your Practice.
•San Diego Bar Association, Business Law Section: Maintaining the Attorney-Client Privilege in General Counsel or In-House Representation.
•San Diego Bar Association, New Lawyers Division and Law Firm Management Section: Ethics for the Small/Solo Law Firm
•San Diego Bankruptcy Forum: Attorney Client Privilege Considerations When Representing Debtor or Creditor Entities
•Office of the Public Defender: Preservation and use of Social Media in Litigation
•County Counsel Civil Law and Litigation Conference: Ethical Considerations in Discovering and Preserving of Electronic Evidence
•San Diego Bar Association: Legal Ethics Committee Presentation on Top 10 Ethics Decisions

•Los Angeles Juvenile Delinquency Association: Ethics Issues Confronting Juvenile-Delinquency Attorneys

•San Diego Bar Association, Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Law Section: How to Navigate Litigation and Ethical Issues in Estate Planning


•February 25, 2019 Ethics in Brief titled “Although California’s New Rules of Professional Conduct Align More Closely to ABA Model Rules, Do Not Forget About the Duty of Confidentiality Codified in Business & Professions Code section 6068(e)(1)”
•October 9, 2018 Ethics in Brief titled “Amendments to California Evidence Code Will Require Attorneys Ensure Their Clients Understand that What Happens in Mediation, Stays in Mediation”
•January 1, 2018 Ethics in Brief titled “Associates Do Not Get a Free Pass From Abiding by the Rules of Professional Conduct by Following a Partner’s Direction
•November 20, 2017 Ethics in Brief titled “The Onslaught of News Regarding Accusations of Sexual Harassment Also Highlight Core Attorney Ethical Duties to Their Clients”
•January 30, 2017 Ethics in Brief titled “California Supreme Court Opinion Holds Not All Attorney Invoices to Clients are Treated the Same for Attorney Client Privilege Protections”
•Quoted in November 28, 2016, Los Angeles Times Article titled “California Bar Association Considers Ban on Attorneys Having Sex with Clients; Some Lawyers Object”
•September 12, 2016, Ethics in Brief titled “Appellate Court Interprets Waivers of Attorney Client Privilege Where the Original Holder is Deceased and Confirms Impropriety of In Camera Review Once the Party Asserting the Privilege Establishes an Attorney Client Communication”
•March 30, 2015, Ethics in Brief titled “Attorney’s Testimony Results in Waiver of Attorney Client Privilege”
•February 2, 2015, Ethics in Brief titled “Resolving Fee or Alleged Malpractice Claims with Clients Requires Attorneys to Carefully Address Issues Regarding Complaints to the State Bar”
•January 19, 2015 Ethics in Brief titled “Recent Ruling in Obstruction of Justice Case Against Former Penn State Officials Provides a Stark Reminder Of General Counsel’s Upjohn Duties”
•December 5, 2014 Ethics in Brief titled “California Appellate Court Embraces In-House Attorney Client Communication Privilege”
•November 24, 2014 Ethics in Brief titled “Public Censure of Tennessee Attorney is Stark Reminder that Attorneys’ Conduct Outside of the Practice of Law Has Consequences”
•September 2, 2014 Ethics in Brief titled “Recent News Highlight the Difficult Issues Facing Corporate Attorneys Made Aware of Potential Criminal Activity”
•August 18, 2014 Ethics in Brief titled “The Court of Appeal Clarifies Attorney Client Privilege Issues Confronting In-House Counsel Suing Their Employer for Wrongful Termination”
•May 27, 2014, Ethics in Brief titled “Can Adverse Parties Maintain Attorney Client Communications Under the ‘Common Interest’ Privilege? Yes, Under the Right Circumstances?”
•March 16, 2014 Ethics in Brief titled “Recent Decision Provides for Assignment of Legal Malpractice Claims Exposing Attorneys to Liability Under Limited Circumstances”
•December 16, 2013 Ethics in Brief titled “Defendant in a Malicious Prosecution Case, an Associate Working Under Principal’s Supervision, May Not Avoid Liability Through a SLAPP Motion Even when the “Associate“ is put into a Difficult Position by Questioning a More Experienced Attorney’s Choices.”
•September 23, 2013 Ethics in Brief titled “Where an Insurer or Employer Offers to Pay Client’s Fees, But With a Different Attorney, Original Attorney Must Carefully Advise as to Consequences of Rejecting the Offer”
•September 23, 2013 Ethics in Brief titled “Where an Insurer or Employer Offers to Pay Client’s Fees, But With a Different Attorney, Original Attorney Must Carefully Advise as to Consequences of Rejecting the Offer”
•July 29, 2013 Ethics in Brief titled “Once A Witness is Designated to Testify or Testifies, Information Once Privileged May No Longer Be Privileged”
•July 1, 2013 Ethics in Brief titled “Some Statutes May Allow for Fee Recovery Without a Retention Agreement; To Avoid Litigating the Issue, Attorneys Should, at a Minimum, Advise All Interested Parties of Their Entitlement”
•June 17, 2013 Ethics in Brief titled “Anti-SLAPP Motions Brought in Lawsuits Against Attorneys: Constitutionally Protected Speech or Breach of an Attorneys’ Professional and Ethical Duties?”
•February 25, 2013 Ethics in Brief titled “Attorney Obtains a Great Result for Client. But Client Gives an Attorney a Negative Review on Yelp. What Can You Do?”
•February 11, 2013 Ethics in Brief titled “Is a privilege log required to preserve the attorney client privilege log required to preserve the attorney client or work product privilege in California? The answer is less clear in light of recent amendments”
•October 9, 2012 Legal Ethics Corner titled “Attorneys’ Continuing Obligations to Clients Could Affect Malicious Prosecution Defenses”
•September 10, 2012 Legal Ethics Corner titled “Practitioners Face Ethical Constraints in Proving Exceptions to the Attorney Client Privilege”
•July 30, 2012 Legal Ethics Corner titled “The Work Product Privilege and Discovery of Witness Lists”
•June 4th, 2012 Legal Ethics Corner titled “Be Wary, Electronic Signatures Are No Replacement for the Real Thing if the Declarant Has Not Seen It”
•March 26, 2012 Legal Ethics Corner titled “Medicare Reporting Requirements Make Settlement Even More Difficult”
•February 27, 2012 Legal Ethics Corner titled “Attorneys Face Conflicting Authority in California in Deciding Whether or Not to Turn Over Attorney Work Product”
•November 17, 2011 Legal Ethics Corner titled “The Heavy Burden in Piercing Your Opponents’ Attorney Client and Work Product Privileges is Again Confirmed”
•September 5, 2011 Legal Ethics Corner titled “Recent Decision Reaffirms Attorneys’ Continued Obligation to Refrain From Taking Action Adverse to Former Clients”
•August 28, 2011 Legal Ethics Corner titled “Attorney Client Privilege Remains Alive Even if Corporation is Barely Alive”
•June 6, 2011 Legal Ethics Corner titled “Failure to Comply with Rule of Professional Conduct 3-300 Regarding Transactions with Clients-Even Where Transactions are Successful for the Client-Can Result in Denial of Quantum Merit Claim for Unpaid Fees”

Education & Credentials

Contact Information:
619-894-8347  Phone
(619) 232-8151  Phone
(619) 232-4665  Fax
University Attended:
University of San Diego, Bachelor of Arts, English, 2000; Extern for U.S. District Judge Howard McKibben, Dist. N.V.; and U. S. Magistrate Judge James Stiven, Ret.; and Southern District U.S. Attorney's Office, White Collar Division
Law School Attended:
California Western School of Law, Juris Doctorate, cum laude, 2005; Roger Traynor Moot Court Team, Received American Jurisprudence Awards in Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure and Aging Law and Public Policy, scholarly writing seminar
Year of First Admission:
United States District Court for the Southern and Central Districts of California; 2005, California

Professional Memberships and Affiliations:

•2016 Chair of San Diego Bar Association Legal Ethics Committee; Current Member of Invitation Only Committee Since 2011

Birth Information:
Pasadena, California, August 18, 1977

Peer Reviews

This lawyer does not have peer reviews.

*Peer Reviews provided before April 15, 2008 are not displayed.

San Diego, California

Contact Andrew A. Servais

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.