Skip to Main Content
Our Commitment to Diversity


Robert B. Mitchell

Representing Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project (DV LEAP) and other organizations before the Washington Court of Appeals as amici curiae in cases addressing the presumptive length of domestic violence protection orders.
Representing American Intellectual Property Law Association before the United States Supreme Court as amicus curiae in support of the petitioners in ABC v. Aereo, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2498 (2014).
Representing municipality in case challenging its impoundment of an illegally parked vehicle occupied by a homeless man. Man claims unlawful seizure, excessive fine, Homestead Act violations, and a violation of his right to substantive due process under the state-created danger doctrine.
Representing municipality and councilmember in action asserting damages for defamation, related state-law claims, and alleged constitutional violations arising from statements labeling plaintiff a notorious slumlord, among other things. See Haglund v. Sawant, --- Fed. Appx. ---, 2019 WL 3021791 (July 10, 2019).
Representing FPR II, LLC before the Washington Court of Appeals in a tax refund action related to B&O tax classifications.
Representing Presbytery of Seattle before the Washington Court of Appeals and Washington Supreme Court in cases addressing the ecclesiastical deference doctrine and church governance and property issues.
Representing United Farmers of Alberta before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in case challenging damages awarded for tortious interference and fraudulent transfers.
Representing State Treasurer in case challenging allocation of municipal bonds among would-be purchasers. Dismissal of all claims was affirmed on appeal. See Access the USA, LLC v. State, 2018 WL 1709674 (April 9, 2018).
Representing Grocery Manufacturers Association before the Washington Court of Appeals in an appeal raising First Amendment and Eighth Amendment challenges to penalties imposed under the Fair Campaign Practices Act.
Representing Lockheed Martin Corporation before the United States Supreme Court in opposing certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Edwards v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 617 Fed. Appx. 648, 2015 WL 3407241 (2015).
Representing Premera Blue Cross before the Washington Court of Appeals in case challenging administrative decision on proposed corporate reorganization and creation of charitable foundations. See Premera v. Kreidler, 133 Wash. App. 23, 131 P.3d 930 (2006).
Representing employer in appeal of judgment recovered by former executive for breach of contract. Case involves, among other things, promissory estoppel and complex contract damages questions as well as a due process claim based on trial court misconduct.
Representing municipalities in litigation challenging regulations of adult cabarets. See Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 132 Wn.2d 103, 937 P.2d 154 (1997); Déjà Vu-Everett-Federal Way, Inc. v. City of Federal Way, 96 Wash. App. 255, 979 P.2d 464 (1999).
Representing Visio Corp. before the Washington Court of Appeals in a case addressing the scope of issue preclusion in administrative proceedings. See City of Seattle, Exec. Servs. Dep’t v. Visio Corp., 108 Wash. App. 566, 31 P.3d 740 (2001).
Representing Microsoft before the U.S. Tax Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Microsoft Corp. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 115 T.C. 228, 2000 WL 1310664 (2000); Microsoft Corp. v. C.I.R., 311 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2002).
Representing exchanges that challenge the Department of Revenue's apportionment of revenue and assessment of B&O tax.
Representing survivor in pro bono appeal from the denial of a sexual assault protection order. See Nelson v. Duvall, 197 Wn. App. 441 (2017).
Representing life insurer in case challenging interpretation of suicide clause and its application to a backdated policy. See Digitalchemy, LLC. v. John Hancock Ins. Co., 2019 WL 5698789 (Nov. 4, 2019).
Return to top of page

Email Disclaimer

We welcome your email, but please understand that if you are not already a client of K&L Gates LLP, we cannot represent you until we confirm that doing so would not create a conflict of interest and is otherwise consistent with the policies of our firm. Accordingly, please do not include any confidential information until we verify that the firm is in a position to represent you and our engagement is confirmed in a letter. Prior to that time, there is no assurance that information you send us will be maintained as confidential. Thank you for your consideration.

Accept Cancel