My Philosophy

A core element of my philosophy is to understand the needs of clients and to always ensure that my clients are fully informed as to all developments in their cases. I am responsive to all questions. I provide my clients with a continuing cost/benefit analysis and measure success by obtaining appropriate ethical results for our clients at a reasonable cost.

I believe that being a lawyer is yet an honorable profession, and it is one where I feel privileged to be a member. I am not a global firm, though I relish the opportunities to litigate against such firms, which I have (successfully) done. Likewise, I appreciate that not every client is a good match for every lawyer, or every firm, but I also realize that a client seeking to retain the “right lawyer” should not be lulled into believing that a firm with 1,000 lawyers will provide better representation, in every case, than I will.

There are those cases, and those clients, for which Revere & Wallace is the perfect choice. I believe that the zealous representation of those clients is the fulfillment of all of my professional goals.

My Clients

Over the years, representing clients have included Hollywood Park, Los Angeles Coliseum Commission, City of Vernon, Donald P. Bellisario, City Glatt, Inc., Montebello Unified School District, Joan Collins, ABS Clothing, Inc., Ice.com, College Health Enterprises and many insurance companies.

News for October 2007

On October 2, 2007, Revere & Wallace was retained to brief and argue a case pending before the California Supreme Court (Manco Contracting v. Bezdikian, Case Number S154076). The Court of Appeal decision under review appears at Manco Contracting Co. (W.L.L.) v. Bezdikian 151 Cal.App.4th 749 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2007).

News for January 2008

At the request of Northrop Grumman Corporation, on January 2, 2008 Revere & Wallace filed an amicus curaie letter on behalf of its client, Krikor Bezdikian, in support of Northrop Grumman’s Petition for Review pending before the California Supreme Court. On January 23, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted that Petition (Guimaraes v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Case Number S158736). The Court deferred any further action in Guimaraes pending the consideration and disposition of related issues in Manco Contracting Co. v. Bezdikian, Case Number S154076. Also, Northrop Grumman has indicated its intention to file an amicus brief in Manco.

News for September 2008

On September 2, 2008, at the opening of its new term, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument on the matter of Manco Contracting Co. v. Bezdikian, discussed above. Frank Revere argued on behalf of Respondent Krikor Bezdikian and A. Kristine Floyd argued on behalf of amicus curaie Northrop Grumman Corporation. Gerald M. Serlin argued on behalf of Appellant Manco Contracting Co. and Steven C. Shuman argued on behalf amicus curaie Renato Guimaraes. The matter was submitted following argument and a decision is expected within 90 days.

News for November 2008

On November 17th, the California Supreme Court decided Manco Contracting v. Bezdikian. (45 Cal. 4th 192). The Court held that while it noted the Uniform Foreign Money Judgment Recognition Act (UFMJRA) of 1967 (now repealed) authorized recognition of “any foreign judgment that is final and conclusive and enforceable where rendered even though an appeal therefrom is pending or it is subject to appeal” (Former Code Civ. Proc.§ 1713.2 ), that no recognition under § 1713.2 is permitted in California until the conclusion of all appeals in the foreign jurisdiction. The court further held ”the most reasonable interpretation of the admittedly confusing statutory language is that the law of the nation where the judgment was rendered determines whether the judgment is sufficiently final, conclusive, and enforceable to be subject to recognition in California.” Based on these conclusions the court determined that the statute of limitations was not a bar to the within action. Thus the litigation continues.

News for 2009

Spent the year litigating a number of matters involving considerable discovery.

News for April 2010

Successfully obtained the reversal of a Superior Court-Los Angeles County Judgment (BC382169) canceling a commercial lease. The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District did not certify its decision for publication. See case number B216835.

News for May 2010

Spent almost the entire month of preparing for expert testimony on an attorney malpractice action pending in the Superior Court-Santa Clara County (108 CIV 115 575).

News for July 2010

Prepared for and tried the matter of Manco Contracting Co. v. Bezdikian after remittiturby the California Supreme Court. Thereafter engaged in post trial briefing.

News for November 2010

The trial court issued a Statement of Decision on the Manco Contracting case finding that the judgment of the Qatari court was recognizable under the California version of the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act-former Code of Civil Procedure sections 1713.1 to 1713.8. The Court proposed to enter judgment in the principal sum of $3,760,275 together with prejudgment interest in the sum of $3,864,326 for a total of $7,624,600. Objections to the Proposed Statement of Decision were filed.

News for December 2010

Successfully obtained the reversal of a Superior Court- Los Angeles County Judgment (KC050819) which awarded damages for emotional distress with regard to the preparation of plans for a residence. The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District held, among other things, the designer did not owe the homeowner any duty of care given the contractual relationship between them and held that in any event economic damages including emotional distress for a legal impossibility given the lack of physical damage citing Civil Code Section 895 et seq. (The Right To Repair Act). The Court of Appeal does not certify its decision for publication. See case number B219836.

Filed objection to the award of prejudgment interest in the Manco Contracting case. These objections were heard on December 29, 2010. The ruling on this motion in contained in the Revised Statement of Decision filed by the court stating that Manco Contracting is not entitled to prejudgment interest on the Qatari judgment. The court noted that the Qatari judgment made May 23, 2000 may or may not authorized post judgment interest and that Manco offered no evidence or authority on this issue. Accordingly, judgment was entered in the sum of $3,760,274.

News for January 2011

Acted as trial counsel for Plaintiff in Partnership Dissolution action. Judgment pending.

News for February 2011

Appeared on behalf of the Defendant in the Manco Contracting case on Defendant’s motion to tax costs which was granted in part. Notice of Appeal was filed in this matter as was a Notice of Cross-Appeal re the prejudgment interest issue.