• Share
  • Email
  • Print

The last word in many cases is an appeal. An appeals court can take away a hard-won victory or remedy a harsh defeat. Skilled appellate advocacy is crucial to achieving desired results.

The lawyers in K&L Gates’ Appellate Practice have broad experience in the nuances of appellate practice, having briefed and argued cases in the United States Supreme Court, in all of the United States Courts of Appeals, and in state appellate courts from New York to California, Washington to Texas, and Massachusetts to Florida. Many of our lawyers are former appellate clerks who bring to their advocacy invaluable insights gained while assisting judges in the decision-making process.

The K&L Gates Appellate Practice has been recognized by the National Law Journal’s Appellate “Hot List,” and a number of its lawyers have been named among the “Best Lawyers in America” in appellate advocacy.

Our appellate lawyers help clients frame winning appeals by focusing on the distinctive rules and standards of review of the appellate courts, reviewing carefully the record and applicable law, and choosing issues that are most likely to lead to a positive result. They draw on the substantive expertise of colleagues throughout K&L Gates’ global practice to provide the highest level of service.

K&L Gates’ appellate lawyers write concise, compelling briefs to persuade judges that the positions our clients advance are not only right on the law but also right as a matter of fairness and policy. At oral argument, our appellate lawyers emphasize the strengths of the client’s positions through skillful use of the record and strategic responses to the questions and concerns that judges raise.

K&L Gates appellate lawyers work with clients to provide a wide array of services:

  • We work with trial teams to ensure all critical issues are properly preserved for appeal.
  • If the trial court or agency enters an adverse order, we help clients determine whether there is a right to an immediate appeal (without waiting for the case to conclude) and, if so, whether an immediate appeal is the best strategy.
  • When a client confronts an unwanted result in the trial court or before an agency, our appellate lawyers review the adverse decision(s), the record, and the law and recommend an appellate strategy that focuses on the strongest issues with the greatest likelihood of success.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court and the highest courts of most states are courts of discretionary review, which means that the first step for a would-be appellant is to convince the court even to hear the case. Our appellate lawyers have significant experience in doing just that, as well as in responding to adversaries’ pleas for review.
  • When a client has prevailed in the trial court or before an agency, our appellate lawyers will work not just to defend the trial court’s legal decisions but also to identify additional bases for affirmance, making the client’s position even stronger.
  • In many of the industries with which K&L Gates lawyers work, clients are interested in expanding or modifying existing rules of law or obtaining favorable interpretations of statutes or regulations. Our appellate lawyers help to identify the best cases to serve as “vehicles” to persuade courts to adopt a desired principle or change their approach. We also identify evidence that should be included in the record to enhance the chances of an opinion that builds the law as desired.
  • Our clients are often leaders in their industries, and they may have an interest in a case even though they are not parties. We have filed hundreds of amicus curie briefs on behalf of our clients, and we know what makes amicus briefs persuasive. We also assist our clients in locating an industry group or building a coalition to share costs and raise the profile of the issue on appeal.

Our appellate work has covered a wide variety of subject areas, including the following:

  • administrative law
  • antitrust
  • arbitration
  • bet-the-company contract and commercial disputes
  • commodities sales
  • constitutional issues
  • criminal law
  • defamation
  • education
  • elections
  • employment and labor
  • energy (including oil and gas)
  • environmental liabilities
  • financial institutions
  • immigration
  • Indian law
  • insurance coverage
  • intellectual property
  • land use
  • municipal law
  • products liability
  • real estate
  • securities
  • tax
  • toxic torts

Areas of Practice

NameTitleOfficeContact
Of Counsel
P +1.412.355.6742
Partner
P +1.412.355.6222
Partner
P +1.206.370.8101
Partner
P +1.214.939.5745
Associate
P +1.212.536.3973
Associate
P +1.509.241.1597
Associate
P +1.312.807.4233
Associate
P +1.310.552.5544
Partner
P +1.717.231.4577
Partner
P +1.415.882.8005
Partner
P +1.212.536.4808
Of Counsel
P +1.412.355.6446
Associate
P +1.310.552.5059
Associate
P +1.415.882.8086
Of Counsel
P +1.412.355.6544
Partner
P +1.415.882.8008
Partner
P +1.206.370.7808
Partner
P +1.973.848.4048
Partner
P +1.704.331.7453
Partner
P +1.907.777.7630
Associate
P +1.214.939.5591
Partner
P +1.412.355.6243
Associate
P +1.202.778.9400
Partner
P +1.412.355.6274
Partner
P +1.717.231.5820
Associate
P +1.919.743.7351
Associate
P +1.415.882.8017
Partner
P +1.206.370.7655
Associate
P +1.202.778.9194
Associate
P +1.206.370.7672
Associate
P +1.310.552.5547
Associate
P +1.717.231.5876
Administrative Partner (Seattle)
P +1.206.370.5834
Partner
P +1.305.539.3378
Counsel
P +1.206.370.7590
Partner
P +1.202.778.9338
Partner
P +1.202.778.9119
Partner
P +1.312.807.4201
Partner
P +1.206.370.8336
Associate
P +1.717.231.4570
Partner
P +1.312.807.4309
Of Counsel
P +1.412.355.6488
Associate
P +1.214.939.5673
Associate
P +1.212.536.4880
Associate
P +1.973.848.4042
Associate
P +1.704.331.7580
Partner
P +1.509.241.1527
Partner
P +1.973.848.4064
Partner
P +1.202.661.3730
Of Counsel
P +1.412.355.6498
Associate
P +1.212.536.4891
Of Counsel
P +1.717.231.4505
Partner
P +1.202.778.9248
Partner
P +1.412.355.6596
Partner
P +1.202.661.6271
Partner
P +1.206.370.7640
Associate
P +1.214.939.5462
Of Counsel
P +1.412.355.6472
Partner
P +1.717.231.4812
Associate
P +1.212.536.4883
Partner
P +1.212.536.3918
Associate
P +1.214.939.5956
Associate
P +1.919.466.1109
Associate
P +1.212.536.4898
Partner
P +1.919.466.1182
Partner
P +1.412.355.8618
Partner
P +1.412.355.8274
Partner
P +1.412.355.6260
Partner
P +1.312.807.4259
Associate
P +1.206.370.7663
Partner
P +1.206.370.8023
Associate
P +1.973.848.4121
Partner
P +1.717.231.5849
Administrative Partner (San Francisco)
P +1.415.249.1028
Partner
P +1.202.661.3764
Partner
P +1.717.231.4510
Associate
P +1.617.951.9134
Partner
P +1.973.848.4061
Partner
P +1.310.552.5521
Government Affairs Analyst
P +1.717.231.5836
Partner
P +1.202.778.9408
Of Counsel
P +1.202.778.9080
Associate
P +1.973.848.4026
Partner
P +1.206.370.8368
Of Counsel
P +1.412.355.6478
Associate
P +1.412.355.8398
Partner
P +1.206.370.7804
Partner
P +1.415.882.8031
Of Counsel
P +1.206.370.8386
Showing 1-10 of 14 results
1 | 2   Next >
Appellate Advocacy
Ballard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 522 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2008): In a case closely followed by the tax bar, the Eleventh Circuit fully vindicated K&L Gates’ client Claude M. Ballard, former head of real estate at The Prudential, against allegations by the Internal Revenue Service that he participated in a complex kick-back and tax fraud scheme. What is especially notable about the Ballard case is that (i) the parties litigated the case for 19 years, (ii) after initially losing in the Eleventh Circuit, K&L Gates secured a reversal from the U.S. Supreme Court on certiorari (Ballard v. Commissioner, 544 U. S. 40 (2005)), and (iii) the Supreme Court’s decision forced the Tax Court to revise materially its own rules of practice. Mr. Ballard received a refund of tax, civil penalties, and interest in excess of $15 million.
Common Cause and League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth et al., 558 F.3d 249 (3rd Cir. 2009), cert. denied ___U.S. ___ (December 2009): In an unusual case that was argued twice and that saw all the judges of a circuit court of appeals recuse, K&L Gates obtained a decision affirming the dismissal of a civil rights suit brought against leaders of all three branches of a state government by Common Cause and the League of Women Voters. The suit alleged that justices of the state supreme court traded favorable decisions on important government cases in return for an agreement by the legislature to appropriate funds for a unified judicial system and to enact judicial pay raises. The suit claimed deprivations of due process, equal protection, and the right to petition, in part because of the manner in which legislation was enacted (the bill expanded from 27 lines to 24 pages and passed swiftly at 2 a.m., with rank-and-file legislators not allowed to propose amendments). With judges from the Second, Seventh and Tenth Circuits sitting as a panel of the Third Circuit, the court decided that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing for any of their claims. The firm represented leaders of the state senate.
In re Volkswagen of Am. Inc., (545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc): In a 10-7 decision, the court issued a writ of mandamus ordering Singleton v. Volkswagen transferred from the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas. This was a major victory and has the potential to significantly limit and reduce the infamous “rocket docket” of products liability and intellectual property cases in Marshall, Texas, where the federal district court there has emerged as a magnet forum for such litigation.
Justin Fuss-McCullough et al. v. Nike, Inc., et al. (2010 Cal. App.): K&L Gates won a major victory for firm client Nike when the California Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a jury verdict in the first and only Nike brand products liability case to go to trial. In its decision, the court upheld a jury verdict that a boy hit in the head with a baseball and injured while wearing a Nike baseball helmet could not recover damages against Nike under the design defect test. The appeals court also affirmed the trial court’s refusal to apply the consumer expectations test. The decision eases concerns among sports equipment manufacturers that the courts would impose a standard that would effectively require companies to insure against sporting injuries.
Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (US 2008): Represented amicus curiae in one of the most important federal securities law cases to reach the Supreme Court in recent years. Relying on some of the same arguments made in our brief, the Supreme Court rejected “scheme liability” theories of plaintiffs' class action lawyers seeking to bring federal securities fraud claims against a wide range of parties that deal with public companies, even if those parties never made a false representation to the plaintiffs in particular or to the public in general.
Constitutional Litigation
Card v. City of Everett, 520 F.3d 1009. (9th Cir. 2008): K&L Gates successfully represented the city of Everett in an Establishment Clause challenge to a Ten Commandments monument located outside Everett’s Old City Hall, which was donated to the city by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1959. It was the first time the Ninth Circuit had the opportunity to review the constitutionality of such monuments on public property since the Supreme Court’s conflicting rulings in McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) and Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).
District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008): In one of its most significant and high-profile constitutional decisions in years, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm and to use it for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense), that the right is not connected with service in a militia, and that the right is not unlimited. K&L Gates represented the President pro tempore of the Pennsylvania Senate, who participated as amicus curiae. K&L Gates’ brief in Heller focused on Pennsylvania’s unique and long constitutional history regarding the right to keep and bear arms. In his majority opinion, Justice Scalia relied on some of the same arguments based on the historical record that K&L Gates made in its brief. Justice Breyer cited the K&L Gates brief in his dissent.
Jubelirer v. Rendell, 953 A.2d 514 (Pa. 2008): K&L Gates represented state legislative leaders in a constitutional case of first impression opposing the attempt of a governor to use his line-item-veto power to redact language in an appropriations act that set conditions on the expenditure of funds. In ruling in favor of K&L Gates’ clients, the state supreme court surveyed the constitutions of many other states on the issue.
Washington State Republican Party et al. v. State of Washington (9th Cir. 2006):  The firm intervened as a plaintiff successfully challenging the constitutionality of state’s “top two” primary election system, which was declared by the district court to violate the First Amendment rights of political parties.  The firm successfully defended the injunction on appeal.
Governmental Litigation
Belden & Blake Corporation v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 969 A. 2d 528 (Pa. 2009): In this case, K&L Gates successfully represented an oil-and-gas producer in an action against the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, which attempted to impose conditions on the producer’s access to its oil and natural gas interests. In this landmark decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the state can neither control nor precondition access to or development of privately held oil and natural gas estates underlying state-owned surface areas.  The decision is significant and timely given the substantial increase in development initiatives on state and federally owned forest and park lands throughout Pennsylvania and the resistance producers have faced when attempting to access and develop their privately held oil and gas interests underlying those lands.