Below is a list of some of the cases the firm has handled, not a complete list, and is not a guaranty of future results.
Doe Corporation v. Roe Corporation
Klein & Wilson represented a staffing company seeking a $6 million of damages from a hospital. As a result of discovery efforts, Klein & Wilson was able to prove breach of contract and also developed substantial evidence of fraud. After the court initially denied Klein & Wilson's request for a writ of attachment, Klein & Wilson presented newly discovered evidence and convinced the court to reverse its ruling and issue a writ of attachment. Immediately before trial, the hospital offered to pay Klein & Wilson's client approximately $6 million. The client rejected that offer given the strength of the fraud case Klein & Wilson developed. Klein & Wilson resolved the case on the first day of trial with the client recovering $6 million of damages, reimbursement of all the client's attorneys' fees, and the hospital was required to award the client a new contract valued at an additional $6 million.
Doe Corporation v. Roe Corporation (Case Confidential)
Klein & Wilson represented a golf club against a uniform and linen service in a binding arbitration. These services are notorious for compelling their customers to sign onerous contracts with hidden terms and then collecting unfair liquidated damages if the customer breaches. Klein & Wilson prevailed at arbitration in a case where the linen service claimed damages and attorneys’ fees. The firm convinced the arbitrator the contract was unconscionable, unenforceable, and the vendor forged a critical piece of evidence.
Venture Communications v. Falcon Communications
In 1992, Mr. Klein represented a limited partner in a cable franchise, alleging a variety of causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. Mr. Klein prevailed at trial and, after a court awarded judgment in favor of Mr. Klein's client, Mr. Klein's client received $26 million by way of settlement.
ReadyLink HealthCare v. Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
The defendant law firm charged its client almost $5 million in legal fees while handling four very sophisticated trade secrets and business cases. None of the four cases went well for the client, despite paying millions of dollars of attorneys' fees. The client hired Klein & Wilson to handle the malpractice case against their former counsel, one of the largest law firms in the United States. After a two month long jury trial, the jury awarded Klein & Wilson's client every penny it requested on its breach of contract and malpractice claims and awarded the defendant law firm nothing on its cross-claims. The case drew significant attention from the California legal community, and the Los Angeles Daily Journal ran a front-page story about this case. Lewis Brisbois Ordered to Pay $6 Million for Overbilling, Mishandling Four Cases.
Affinitec v. Siemens
In May 1999, Klein & Wilson won a verdict of approximately $5 million on behalf of one of its software clients against Siemens Business Communications, Inc., one of the largest companies in the world. Affinitec prevailed on all of its breach of contract claims and recovered 99 percent (99%) of all the damages it requested from the jury. Siemens filed a cross-complaint against Klein & Wilson's client, but recovered nothing.
Does Corporation v. Roes
Klein & Wilson represented a company which hired design professionals and a general contractor to construct a sales facility in Central California. The designers and contractors made a number of errors, resulting in construction defects. Because of insurance coverage issues, the defendants' insurance carriers refused to settle until Klein & Wilson took approximately 50 depositions and proved that each defendant had serious exposure. After several mediations, Klein & Wilson recovered $3 million for its client - enough money for the client to make the necessary repairs to its facility.
CD Listening Bar, Inc. v. Doe Major Accounting Firm
Klein & Wilson's client in this matter was one of the largest distributors of compact disc products in the United States. As the result of rapid growth, the client needed to replace its existing accounting software package with a higher end package while remaining in operation. It retained a major accounting firm to do the work. The job was done poorly and Klein & Wilson's client lost millions of dollars. The difficulty in the case was proving the precise amount of damages. The case ultimately settled for $2 million.
STM Wireless, Inc. v. AmeriData, a Subsidiary of General Electric
Klein & Wilson represented a public company in a complicated breach of contract action against a much larger corporation. Two weeks before trial, Klein & Wilson shared its mock trial results with the opposing side, and the parties reached a settlement worth more than $2 million.
STM Wireless, Inc. v. Gilat
Klein & Wilson represented a public satellite communications company in a dispute with a competitor over a contract in Peru. The client won the contract, but alleged the competitor had stolen the contract using improper influence with Peruvian government ministers. When Klein & Wilson filed a suit on behalf of the client, the competitor's attorneys referred to the case as frivolous. As a result of Klein & Wilson's efforts, even the United States Congress became interested in the case and began its own inquiry. Ultimately, the competitor settled the case for $1.75 million.
Devore v. Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Company
In this case, Klein & Wilson represented a dentist who could no longer practice dentistry because he suffered from chronic daily migraine headaches. The disability carrier refused to pay insurance proceeds on the ground the dentist had made misrepresentations in his application and because it challenged the extent of the dentist's disability. After Klein & Wilson received a plaintiff's verdict, the case settled for $1.5 million.
Next Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Stauber Performance Ingredients, Inc.
In this case, Klein & Wilson represented a nutritional supplements firm who sold $750,000 of nutritional supplements to defendant. Defendant alleged the product was defective and refused to pay. After Klein & Wilson filed a complaint, defendant filed a cross-complaint, alleging a variety of wrongful conduct by Klein & Wilson's client. After working up the case and attending a mediation where Klein & Wilson put on a multimedia trial presentation, defendant agreed to settle the case in an imaginative settlement which was worth almost $1.5 million to the client. This settlement would not have been possible had Klein & Wilson not done extensive briefing and put on a multimedia trial presentation at the mediation.
Vera Townhomes Homeowners' Association v. Vera Townhomes
In a construction defect case, Klein & Wilson represented a homeowners' association consisting of 48 condominium units. The developers and contractors denied there were construction defects and refused to pay anything. After conducting a "show-and-tell" presentation of the defects at the project and inviting all the defendants to destructive testing, the defendants recognized they would be found liable and paid Klein & Wilson's client approximately $1.5 million.
Guild, Inc. v. J.C. Penney
In 2004, Klein & Wilson won a verdict of $1.4 million in a breach of implied contract and copyright infringement case against one of the largest retailers in the United States. The jury awarded every penny Klein & Wilson requested. The Court commented that Klein & Wilson's multimedia trial presentation was the best it had ever seen.
Project FasTags, Inc. v. Fascenelli
Klein & Wilson represented one of two partners in the breakup of a lucrative partnership. In addition to various breach of fiduciary duty claims, Klein & Wilson represented the client in claims of copyright and trademark violation. Klein & Wilson was able to achieve a settlement resulting in a payment to its client of just over $1 million. In addition, the client retained control of the business.
Doe Corporation v. Roe Corporation (Case Confidential)
Klein & Wilson's client hired Texas counsel to try a breach of contract case. In the middle of trial, the attorney-client relationship deteriorated. In an unusual set of circumstances, the parties' attorneys signed a letter of intent regarding settlement terms, but the case was dismissed before the parties signed a formal settlement agreement. When the defendant refused to honor the settlement terms, the client hired new Texas counsel who tried to get the case reinstated. After eight months of being in limbo, the client asked Klein & Wilson to see what it could do. Klein & Wilson resolved the case with the defendant paying Klein & Wilson's client $1 million.
Doe Corporation v. Roe Corporation
Klein & Wilson represented a company which sold its medical billing assets in exchange for cash and a promissory note. When the buyer defaulted on the promissory note, Klein & Wilson filed an action against the buyer. The buyer filed a cross-complaint alleging 17 causes of action, pursued an aggressive discovery campaign, and designated multiple experts to try and prove the seller engaged in an international tax fraud conspiracy, which would somehow relieve the buyer from making payments on the promissory note.
The buyer demanded $2.4 million to settle the cross-complaint against Klein & Wilson's client. Before trial, the parties filed multiple motions in limine. Klein & Wilson won every substantive motion and persuaded the court to exclude defendants' experts. The court held a separate trial on the equitable issues the case presented, and Klein & Wilson prevailed. Klein & Wilson then persuaded the court to force defendants to present an offer of proof on the cross-complaint. After the court dismissed the first seven causes of action, the case settled in a favorable manner to Klein & Wilson's client.
Doe Client v. Shari Sullivant
Klein & Wilson represented a client who entered into a promissory note with defendant, which provided for a substantial penalty if payments were not made timely. The client claimed defendant owed $665,000, plus interest. Defendant failed to make timely payments and alleged she was excused from doing so, because the note was usurious. Klein & Wilson persuaded defendant that the note was not usurious and negotiated a stipulation of entry of judgment. Defendant failed to comply with the stipulation; accordingly, Klein & Wilson obtained a judgment against defendant for approximately $827,000.
Doe Corporation v. Roe Insurance Corporation (Case Confidential)
Klein & Wilson recovered $715,000 for a client whose insurers refused to defend it for a covered claim, requiring the client to defend itself. This settlement represented 95 percent of the client's claim for unpaid defense costs.
Paritcher Khadem-Missagh v. Haroonian
In 2000, Klein & Wilson represented a man who lent money to carpet salesmen in Beverly Hills. The carpet salesmen refused to pay the money back. Klein & Wilson obtained summary judgment as to two of the defendants and judgment on the pleadings as to the remaining defendants, resulting in judgments totaling $700,000.
Does v. Roe Corporation (Case Confidential)
Klein & Wilson represented tenants who subleased their space to a corporation. Former counsel structured the deal in such a way that Klein & Wilson's clients made no money on the sublease, but remained liable to the landlord should the subtenant fail to make lease payments. Klein & Wilson filed an action against the subtenant, seeking a declaration of how to interpret the lease. At the same time, Klein & Wilson indicated there was a possibility its clients would evict the subtenants, under a provision which gave the clients a unilateral right to re-occupy the property. The case settled when the subtenant agreed to pay Klein & Wilson's clients $645,000 in exchange for their waiver of their right to re-occupy the property. Accordingly, Klein & Wilson turned an unprofitable transaction into a windfall.
Brutocao v. The Hunt Club Community Association
Klein & Wilson's client was forced to sue his homeowners' association, which refused to allow him to build on plans it had previously approved. Klein & Wilson attempted to settle the case early through mediation, but the homeowners' association stubbornly refused to budge an inch. At trial, the court found in favor of Klein & Wilson's client and awarded not only substantial damages, but also the majority of the client's legal fees, finding that the quality of representation had been superior.
Doe v. Roe Corporation (Case Confidential)
Klein & Wilson represented the former chief executive officer of a major corporation. The major corporation failed to live up to numerous provisions of a post-employment agreement. After three days of arbitration, the defendant agreed to pay all the money Klein & Wilson's client requested, totaling over $500,000.
Wesley v. Kifton
In this construction defect case, Mr. Wilson sued some of the largest developers in California, including Jack Nicklaus (the golfer) and Watt Industries. Mr. Wilson's clients purchased a large residential lot on a Jack Nicklaus golf course and, soon after the purchase, the lot was destroyed by a flood. All the defendants denied liability, and Mr. Nicklaus even threatened Mr. Wilson with a malicious prosecution action. After Mr. Wilson presented compelling evidence that the lot was defective, the defendants settled by paying approximately $500,000.
Doe Corporation v. Roe Corporation (Case Confidential)
Klein & Wilson's client hired a structural engineering firm to design several commercial buildings. Years after the buildings were constructed, a piece of concrete broke off one of the concrete panels. Investigation revealed the structural engineer made calculation errors, resulting in inadequate chord connections. At mediation, Klein & Wilson recovered all of the client's damages, including attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest.
Business Center Drive Partners v. BioGentec Corporation
BioGentec was a landlord's worst nightmare. The company was habitually late on rent and repeatedly made commitments it did not keep. The landlord, Klein & Wilson's client, refused to renew the lease and, at that point, the landlord's nightmare only got worse. BioGentec held over and took advantage of every procedural opportunity to delay eviction. As a result of Klein & Wilson's very aggressive litigation tactics, Klein & Wilson successfully evicted BioGentec and then won a substantial monetary judgment against BioGentec for back rent and attorneys' fees. Although BioGentec did not voluntarily pay the judgment, Klein & Wilson convinced the court to find the principal of BioGentec in contempt of court for failing to turn over assets and almost all of the outstanding judgment was recovered when the judge threatened to throw the principal in jail. This was an extremely satisfying result.
Breton v. Midland TME
In a construction dispute, Mr. Klein represented a construction company for collection of its contract account and foreclosure of a mechanic's lien. The defendants alleged construction defect and a variety of other defenses, including some issues never before considered by a California court. Mr. Klein recovered over $250,000 for the construction company and won the right for his client to foreclose on its mechanic's lien.
John Doe v. AMMCO Holdings, LLC (Case Confidential)
$250,000 (Binding Arbitration)
AMMCO hired Klein & Wilson's client to be its president and gave him the impossible task of turning the company around in short order, even though the company's accounting department was incompetent and years of sloppy corporate culture permeated every department. Klein & Wilson's client made great strides in improving quality control and repairing damaged customer relationships. Nevertheless, AMMCO's board abruptly terminated the client for "cause" after a disgruntled employee complained about his management style. Consequently, AMMCO refused to pay the severance set forth in the employment agreement and other wages, on the ground that the "for cause" termination justified its decision.
Klein & Wilson persuaded AMMCO to submit the case to binding arbitration which saved Klein & Wilson's client thousands of dollars in fees and costs. At the binding arbitration in front of Justice Edward Wallin, Klein & Wilson proved its client met AMMCO's stated objectives and there was no "cause" justifying the client's termination. Justice Wallin awarded Klein & Wilson's client the entire severance payment requested, plus vacation pay, penalties, expert witness fees, interest, costs, and all of Klein & Wilson's attorneys' fees.
Does v. Roe Law Firm
Klein & Wilson recovered $250,000 in a legal malpractice case where the attorneys did a poor job preparing an underlying personal injury and civil rights case. Despite serious issues of causation, Klein & Wilson convinced the insurance carrier a jury would overlook those issues because of the attorneys' misconduct.
Doe v. John Roe (Case Confidential)
One of the largest law firms in the United States sought $747,181.79 from its client in a fee dispute. Klein & Wilson cast doubt on the law firm's bills by comparing the work product with the amount of time the attorneys billed. The case settled for $200,000 before the fee arbitration.
MacPherson v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation
In 1987, Mr. Klein sued Wall Street securities firm Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation ("DLJ") on behalf of an investor whose account was wrongfully liquidated by the securities company. DLJ countersued the investor for over $1 million, alleging securities fraud and a variety of other causes of action. Mr. Klein received summary judgment on most of the security company's causes of action and, at trial, received a defense verdict on DLJ's remaining causes of action. The jury awarded the investor approximately $200,000, representing the value of the wrongfully liquidated account.
Masonry Mechanics v. Breton Construction
Mr. Wilson represented Breton Construction in this construction defect and breach of contract action. Masonry Mechanics sued Breton Construction for several hundred thousand dollars for nonpayment of its work. Mr. Wilson proved that Breton Construction refused to pay for the work because it was defective. Moreover, Mr. Wilson proved that Masonry Mechanics caused Breton Construction to suffer approximately $200,000 in delay damages. At arbitration, the court awarded Masonry Mechanics nothing and awarded Mr. Wilson's client approximately $200,000.
HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. MTDS, Inc.
One of the largest financial institutions in the world sued Klein & Wilson's client for $1 million it claimed was owed . As a result of bookkeeping errors, Klein & Wilson's client admittedly lost $1 million of plaintiff's money. Klein & Wilson was able to convince the plaintiff to take less than 15 cents on the dollar of the amounts owed and the client's insurance carrier to pay the balance owed, except for the client's deductible of $15,000. Accordingly, on a loss of over $1 million, the client paid only $15,000.
Ambassador Hotel Co., Ltd. v. Wei-Chuan Investments
Klein & Wilson was retained only after the client suffered a judgment approaching $70 million. Following reversal of the trial court's ruling, Klein & Wilson was able to have the judgment reduced by tens of millions of dollars.
Doe v. Roe Law Firm
Klein & Wilson's client hired a law firm to represent her in a divorce case. The attorney did a poor job preparing her case for trial and relied too heavily upon an expert who did not know what she was doing. When the client complained that the expert's report was filled with mathematical mistakes, the lawyer panicked, made an inappropriate contact, and forcefully told the client she had to settle. Klein & Wilson's client decided she could not trust the attorney anymore and was also afraid of him because of his physical aggression. She terminated his services and asked the court for a trial continuance, but the court refused to continue the trial. The trial ended in a predictable disaster. The defense contended the client's wounds were "self-inflicted" and that it was her discharge of the attorney which led to the disastrous trial result. Regrettably, there was more than a hint of truth to that contention. Nevertheless, Klein & Wilson was able to achieve a favorable confidential settlement for its client, allowing her to get back on track with her life and not be distracted by further litigation.
Doe Corporations v. Roe Corporation (Case Confidential)
Klein & Wilson represented some of the largest companies in the world in an action against a toxic polluter to fund a settlement with the Environmental Protection Agency. The toxic polluter said it could not pay what it owed because it was out of business and had no assets. Klein & Wilson uncovered evidence that defendant's president used the company like a personal piggy bank. Therefore, Klein & Wilson pursued the president under an alter ego theory. These tactics resulted in a substantial settlement for Klein & Wilson's clients. Accordingly, in a case where the target defendant had no money, Klein & Wilson still recovered almost every penny owed.
Doe Corporation v. Roe Corporation (Case Confidential)
Klein & Wilson represented Roe Corporation, who was sued by an individual claiming Roe Corporation entered into a written agreement providing the individual a 30 percent (30%) interest in the company as well as guaranteeing employment for five years at $100,000 per year. Plaintiff's settlement demand was $5 million. Roe Corporation hired Klein & Wilson just two weeks before the case was set for trial. Klein & Wilson persuaded the trial court to continue the trial. Klein & Wilson then took plaintiff's deposition by videotape, during which Klein & Wilson impeached plaintiff many times. Subsequently, Klein & Wilson persuaded plaintiff to attend a mediation. At the mediation, Klein & Wilson used a multimedia presentation showing how badly plaintiff had been impeached. The case settled at mediation for $60,000.
Doe Corporation v. Roe Law Firm
Klein & Wilson brought a legal malpractice action against one of the largest and most prominent law firms in California for its mishandling of a "bet-the-company" trade secrets case and its failure to recognize serious conflicts of interest. At the time Klein & Wilson accepted the case, the law firm was demanding approximately $500,000 from the client. Klein & Wilson settled the case on the eve of trial for $725,000 with the law firm agreeing to write-off its entire bill of almost $500,000.
Does v. Roe LLC (Case Confidential)
After obtaining an arbitration award of $825,000 for Klein & Wilson's client, the defendant tried to escape payment by creating new business entities. Klein & Wilson filed an action for fraudulent conveyance and related claims, causing the defendant to settle for a confidential amount.
Does v. Roes
Klein & Wilson represented Pakistani clients who alleged they formed a joint venture with a German corporation to bring mobile banking to Pakistan. This case had jurisdictional and choice of law issues; nevertheless, Klein & Wilson was successful in keeping the case venue in the United States. After prevailing on a substantive motion and showing the defendants the case had huge exposure, the parties resolved their differences. This was the first time in Klein & Wilson's history where it agreed not to reveal the names of the parties or how the case was resolved - the result was substantial.
Greenfield Monterey Park, LLC v. The Ezralow Company, LLC
Greenfield Monterey Park, LLC v. The City of Monterey Park
Klein & Wilson represented several defendants in related State Court cases involving the proposed development of one of the largest Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") Superfund sites in the United States. Plaintiffs sought tens of millions of dollars in damages from Klein & Wilson's clients and various public entities. The parties and the EPA Superfund site were subject to a convoluted Federal consent decree; accordingly, Klein & Wilson successfully stayed the State Court cases, requiring plaintiffs to seek redress from the EPA. After the parties completed the Federal dispute resolution process, the State Court cases resumed, and Klein & Wilson settled the claims against its clients for only $700,000, with $275,000 of that amount being paid by the clients' insurers. Klein & Wilson obtained orders finding the settlement to be in good faith, prompting other parties to file writs to challenge the trial court's orders. Klein & Wilson responded with motions for summary judgment against the challenging parties. The parties withdrew their writs, finally ending these cases after more than five years of litigation.
JAG Industries v. Brutoco Development
In this case, Mr. Klein represented a land developer accused of breaching an option to buy a particular property. Mr. Klein moved for a defense verdict at the conclusion of plaintiff's presentation of evidence. The motion was granted, resulting in a judgment for Klein & Wilson's client.
Kessler v. Horan
In this attorney malpractice action, Mr. Wilson represented an investor who purchased real estate in Newport Beach. The attorney who represented Mr. Wilson's client in the transaction botched the transaction so badly, the client's title to the property was unclear, which resulted in several other lawsuits being filed. The attorney denied all liability and the case went to trial. The attorney was represented by one of Orange County's most experienced trial attorneys. Nevertheless, Mr. Wilson prevailed at trial and recovered all the damages requested.
Krogh v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation
In this case, two investors sued their securities broker for wrongful liquidation of their accounts. After completion of discovery, Mr. Klein received a substantial settlement on behalf of his clients, the amount of which is confidential.
LDM v. Unisys Corporation
In 1986, Mr. Klein negotiated a settlement for his client with Unisys Corporation. At the time, this was the largest settlement ever paid by Unisys Corporation in a non-securities case. The settlement amount is confidential.
Overton, Lyman & Prince v. John Doe
In 1986, Mr. Klein represented a client of Overton, Lyman & Prince, a prominent law firm, who contested any obligation to pay further attorneys' fees to the Overton firm. At trial, the court determined the Overton firm had not carried its burden in proving fees were owed and, upon Mr. Klein's motion, the court granted a defense verdict in favor of Mr. Klein's client.
Pellizzon v. Fidelity Investments
In this case, Mr. Klein represented a securities investor whose orders were not executed properly. Mr. Klein prevailed in arbitration and the client was awarded all the money he requested.
Plaza Freeway Limited Partnership v. First Mountain Bank
In this case, Klein & Wilson represented a shopping center attempting to evict a bank tenant based upon expiration of the bank's lease. Both sides agreed the lease had not yet expired, but the bank had executed an estoppel certificate indicating an erroneous lease expiration date. The question presented at trial was whether the bank was bound by its estoppel certificate or whether the actual lease expiration date should be enforced. In a case of first impression, the trial court concluded the bank was not bound by the estoppel certificate. Klein & Wilson appealed and the appellate court reversed, finding the estoppel certificate enforceable and directing the court to enter judgment in favor of Klein & Wilson's client. The case was a published decision and was one of the ten most important appellate decisions involving real estate during 2000.
Price Pfister, Inc. v. Metaldyne Corporation
Price Pfister, Inc. ("Price Pfister"), a subsidiary of Black & Decker Corporation, sued Klein & Wilson's clients alleging they were responsible to defend all asbestos lawsuits filed against Price Pfister. Price Pfister sought reimbursement of $1 million it incurred defending asbestos cases to date and an order requiring Klein & Wilson's clients to pay all of Price Pfister's future legal bills. Klein & Wilson tried the case against Edward Hugo of Brydon, Hugo & Parker who claims to be one of the most successful trial attorneys in Northern California. Klein & Wilson proved that Price Pfister's claims had no merit and obtained a defense judgment. Price Pfister appealed the judgment, and the appellate court partially reversed the judgment. The appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court to determine whether, pursuant to Civil Code section 2778(4), Klein & Wilson's clients were obligated to pay the defense costs Price Pfister sought. Klein & Wilson prevailed again on the new trial and recovered a second defense judgment against Price Pfister.
Saad v. Gilchrist
In this action, Mr. Klein represented the former president of a software company on a breach of guarantee case. At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, Mr. Klein moved for a defense verdict. Judgment was entered on behalf of Mr. Klein's client without his client being required to present further evidence. Costs were awarded to Mr. Klein's client.
Siegel v. Dyer
Plaintiff sued Klein & Wilson's client, alleging she failed to disclose fungus when she sold her property to plaintiff. The case was troubling because the parties signed an amendment to the agreement in which the client disclosed the fungus, plaintiff agreed to take responsibility for it, and plaintiff received a credit for the condition. Due to this fact, Klein & Wilson filed a cross-complaint alleging plaintiff was breaching the terms of the contract. On the eve of the hearing on a motion for summary judgment Klein & Wilson filed, plaintiff agreed to pay Klein & Wilson's client $60,000 for having to defend a frivolous lawsuit.
Singh v. Royal Maccabees Insurance Company
Klein & Wilson's client was a prominent anesthesiologist. Following a traffic accident, he suffered carpal tunnel syndrome, for which the insurance company paid partial disability benefits. However, after releasing the insurance company from any claim for partial disability, the client found he was still not improving. The insurance company refused to pay any further benefits, and Klein & Wilson sued on behalf of the client. After getting the case ready for trial, the insurance company settled for a confidential amount.
Sjostrom v. Pepper Hamilton, LLP
Klein & Wilson's client sold his business and expected to have a covenant not to compete in the sales agreement, which would have prevented the owners of the assets he acquired from competing against him. The client discovered the covenant not to compete, which the lawyers drafted, did not prohibit the former principals of the company from competing. The client, therefore, sued his former counsel, one of the largest law firms in the country. Klein & Wilson worked cooperatively with opposing counsel to resolve this case satisfactorily for all sides, without a large expenditure of legal fees.
Vera Townhomes Homeowners' Association v. Chesley Construction, Inc.
A general contractor threatened to sue Klein & Wilson's client, a homeowners' association, for unpaid construction fees. Following Klein & Wilson's advice, the homeowners' association sued first. At the binding arbitration, the association argued not only had it paid the contractor in full, it had overpaid the contractor for its work. Before the arbitration, the association offered to settle the case for a "walk-away," with both sides surrendering their competing claims against each other. The contractor refused and insisted on pressing its cross-complaint. The case proceeded to arbitration. Using a multimedia presentation, Klein & Wilson convinced the arbitrator that the association was owed every penny it requested, and the arbitrator awarded the contractor nothing. The arbitrator later told the local bar association Klein & Wilson's multimedia presentation was the most effective trial presentation he had ever seen.
Vera Townhomes Homeowners' Association v. State Farm
In conjunction with the construction defect case referenced above, Klein & Wilson filed a first party claim against State Farm Insurance. The claim was rejected, and Klein & Wilson filed an action for bad faith against the insurance company. Before any depositions were taken, State Farm settled by paying the association's entire claim. The settlement amount is confidential.