Category Archives: law in the news

b e r k e s l a w To The Rescue

To The Rescue

I just received this email from a dear friend who lives in New York, and walked the walk last night in Staten Island.  I want to share this story with people in every way I know how.  I will keep my friend’s [and other] names out of this, but not for lack of pride.  Please read this:

Many of you know about my growing frustration about the lack of response to help those in need on Staten Island.
After an evening spent getting circuit/busy signal trying to call [   ]‘s friends who run a fabulous non-profit on the West Side to see if they had any way to get food and water I could purchase over to Staten Island….

And my Car Service being of absolutely no help as no cars had any gas. 
I even asked the Amex Platinum Concierge to help finding me a Car Service.  No dice there.  
Avis, Enterprise and Hertz had cars available.  Tomorrow.  With no GPS.  
For a zillion dollars a day.  With zero gas, of course.
What, exactly, was standing between me.  And Staten Island.  And helping out tonight? 
A car.  
So.  I decided to do what New Yorkers do – Hail a cab.  
4 cabs (when I could find one, after over an hour of waiting on First Avenue) left me in the dust when they heard what I wanted to do.
I finally found Sam, who was very willing to help.  And he had a hybrid!
Sadly, by the time I found Sam, our local grocery store, [    ] on 86th street was closed.
I pounded on the window, and pleaded with the Manager while Sam was GPS-ing a spot to deliver the food and water.  
OK, I wasn’t pleading so much as I was doing a whole lot of emotional blackmail.  
However, once I explained my plan, the doors swung open and everyone in the store helped me shop.
And, a coupla hundred bucks and a full SUV later Sam and I headed out — and into/onto Staten Island.
I gotta believe, I was not charged for most of what was in the back of that SUV.
We were directed to 15S exit — don’t ask me where in the heck that was.
Most of lower Manhattan was still dark.
As was most of New Jersey and a good part of Brooklyn.
It was anxiety provoking, to say the least.
I seriously hoped the pixie dust of ‘doing good’ would protect us.
There were a few moments when I thought I had ridiculously gotten us into harm’s way.  Right about the time all we saw were flares I felt really foolish.
As soon as we exited the bridge we were up to our wheels in an absurd amount sand.  
There were a few cops who were totally astonished at the sight of a yellow cab arriving just before midnight heading where we were heading.
Where were we heading?  The place that was taking donations had been moved.  
Eventually, we were told to follow an NYPD convoy.
With a boat.  A boat!
Now, that was comforting.  
We were questioned and the contents of the cab examined.  
I offered up my California Driver’s License.  
I was told by New York’s Finest that I was no longer an LA Girl, I was now a New Yorker.
And we were directed to turn to the right.
It was insane.  I mean, seriously: Imagine Laguna or Corona Del Mar.
Just imagine it as a darkened, deserted set on the backlot of Universal Studios without a moon.  
There were a few klieg lights.  A few.  
And nary a sign of life, though there were people sleeping in cars.  
It was an odd kind of empty-fullness.  No lights, everybody home.
We proceeded down a very dark, and totally frightening stretch of street, called Father Capodanno Boulevard.
Every single house or housing development was pitch black.   Our tires were skidding in the sand.
After what seemed like a ridiculously long amount of time: A crazy time where two total strangers chatted about whatever two strangers chat about when driving into a war zone…we finally stumbled upon a “Command Center”.
I jumped out of Sam’s cab and decided to get charming.
Again.  Remember: I am a passenger in a Yellow Cab.  I have a trunk full of supplies.  I have silver hair.  And a cab driver with a meter off.  
And there is no one…and I mean nary a soul out on that road in Staten Island, at just past midnight.  
Save the cops in that particular command center.  
Our presence was more than a bit startling for them.  
I knocked on the trailer door.  Yelled: Hello!  Good Evening!  Anybody home?  
OK.  I pounded.  
Kinda like I owned the joint: We’re here from the Upper East Side and we brought supplies!  I chirped.  Like Perle Mesta.  
Suffice to say, they were totally surprised.  
Actually, I forgot they were armed.  
Hindsight, 20/20.
They certainly didn’t know what to do with me.  Or Sam.  Or a cab laden with food, water and shampoo.
We can discuss my shopping choices at a later date.
I was in a hurry.  
I was in a closed Gristedes and not sure what flooded people really needed at that red-hot moment so I bought a whole lot of everything
Grooming supplies seemed very important to the Cashier, so I added them to the water and sports drinks and power bars and cereal. 
So, once New York’s Finest got over the shock of our arrival, they helped Sam and I unload “the goods”.
At first, they weren’t really sure where to put them/store them and I assured them, “somewhere close to the Verizon Truck might be a good idea”.  
I am so bossy.
I offered, perhaps, they could take what they needed if they were hungry.  
I was, of course, mocked for bringing the donuts.
We were both surprised at the total lack of organization.  
Surely we couldn’t be the only people who had done this?  
There were a whole lot of hugs, and quite a few tears, and a whole lot of astonishment about the fact that Sam turned the meter off.  
Honestly, they were beyond taken aback that we drove out of Manhattan to do this.  
The only thing I asked the Command Center was that when the people of Staten Island asked if ‘New Yorkers forgot about them’, to tell them that we did not forget about them.
The ride home was a whole lot to deal with after everything we had seen: The City seemed darker.  The Empire State Building glowed brighter.  Half a bridge illuminated?  
Home?  How do you manage home after what we had seen?  
Sam was quite embarrassed when I handed him 200 dollars for the evening of our little NGO of Two.  
I assured him that my payment was small compensation – he had a tank full of gas and he was more than willing to forego making money for the night to help a whole bunch strangers.    
Including me.  
It was a perfectly imperfect evening: We discussed his kids, and growing up in Ghana, and how the storm affected his family.  
We talked about his experience of New Yorkers before and after Hurricane Sandy.
He asked me why?  Why was I so insistent on doing this: No cabs. A closed store. Driving into hell and back.
I told him: Because I could. And because I should.  
That tonight was about remembering something I learned a long time ago: When there are really big things going wrong, one person cannot fix everything.
But one person can do one thing.
This was my thing.
And I needed his assistance to help me pull it off.  I simply could not do this alone.
Perhaps this is the greatest lesson of the last decade: Learning how to ask for help.
Honestly, I got a whole lotta help tonight — The entire staff of Gristedes on 86th who really wanted to go home after a long day, chief among them.
I asked Sam why.  Why was he was so willing to do it?  Why did he turn off his meter?  
Sam said that it was the right thing to do: He was one of the few who had gas.  He had time.  And there were people out on Staten Island who needed our help.  
Together, we could offer our help.
So, there you have it.  
Get me frustrated enough.  Angry enough…I will surely find a way through it.  
I guess the magic key was asking the right person to help me.  
And whatever money was spent giving comfort.  It totally pales in comparison to the great gift of having done it.  Together.  I like the thought of waking up tomorrow knowing that someone out on Staten Island has Cheerios.
And nice shampoo.  
Embarrassing indeed, that Eric and I spent far less money last Friday night at the “Fete Du Bordeaux” at The Four Seasons restaurant.  
I look at those photos of the 11 wine glasses.  Shit.  
Hard to believe.
One week ago tonight I was swanning around in Louboutains.
Totally reckless excess.  
Sitting next to that bubbling pool with our short ribs and cotton candy and cheese courses and feeling as if we deserved it. 
Earned it.  
Certainly we savored every drop of that glorious wine.
And we were endlessly grateful for our good health, and fine company, and sublime surroundings — delighted to devour a meal for the ages laughing together about the folly of it all.
There is no balance.  
No reckoning of accounts.
No “Fair Book” as my old friend Jerry used to say.  
It is not “fair” that I have power.  Water.  Walls.  Cable.  Phone.  Food.  Or Heat.  
I am, however, incredibly grateful for Sam.  
It is a night I will remember for the rest of my life.

 

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*


*


Services – Berkeslaw

Services

Product / Service #1

Whatever your company is most known for should go right here, whether that’s bratwurst or baseball caps or vampire bat removal.

Product / Service #2

What’s another popular item you have for sale or trade? Talk about it here in glowing, memorable terms so site visitors have to have it.

Product / Service #3

Don’t think of this product or service as your third favorite, think of it as the bronze medalist in an Olympic medals sweep of great products/services.

Talk more about your products here.

Tell prospective customers more about your company and the services you offer here.  Replace this image with one more fitting to your business.

Talk more about your products here.

Tell prospective customers more about your company and the services you offer here.  Replace this image with one more fitting to your business.

Next Steps…

This is should be a prospective customer’s number one call to action, e.g., requesting a quote or perusing your product catalog.

Portfolio – Berkeslaw

Portfolio

Product / Service Categories

Project Name

Talk about this portfolio piece–who you did it for and why, plus what the results were (potential customers love to hear about real-world results). Discuss any unique facets of the project–was it accomplished under an impossible deadline?–and show how your business went above and beyond to make the impossible happen.

Product / Service Categories

Project Name

Talk about this portfolio piece–who you did it for and why, plus what the results were (potential customers love to hear about real-world results). Discuss any unique facets of the project–was it accomplished under an impossible deadline?–and show how your business went above and beyond to make the impossible happen.

b e r k e s l a w Grimace and Bear It

Grimace and Bear It

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

With the horror of the massacre in Sandy Hook Elementary School still searing raw in the collective consciousness, there may actually be developing some consensus to do something about the carnage routinely occurring in the streets, schools and homes of America.  Maybe.  Between the extremes — both self-evidently untenable — there must be available some action (or actions) that we can take to reduce the shocking flow of gun-related homicides.  Indelicately stated, if there was something that we could have done that might have saved the life of even one of those precious children in Newtown, would we not have deemed it sufficient cause to act?

The gun lobbyists and “right to bear arms” absolutists love to argue that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the citizenry’s right to defend themselves against their own government.  Take a deep breath: They are absolutely correct.  Better still, the Second Amendment was also enacted to secure the ancient right of a free person to arm and protect themselves, their families and property.  These are not “negotiating points.”

But here’s the kicker, folks: Even the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”), no friend to the “gun control” faction, has recognized that the rights granted by the Second Amendment are not “unlimited.”  Do I need to say that again?  Surely not.  Indeed,  from the pen of no less a personage than Justice Anton Scalia, writing for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller554 U.S. 570 (2008), comes the following passage (worth repeating in its entirety despite its length) regarding the boundaries of the Second Amendment:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.  From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. [citations omitted]  For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. [citations omitted].  Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.  Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.  We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” [citations omitted].  It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service —M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.  But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of theSecond Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.  It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.  Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.  But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Id., at pp. 54-56.
Little mentioned, but there it is: According to the SCOTUS, there is a limitation of great significance besides those relating to “felons and the mentally ill,” and in addition to (the currently eroding) prohibition against the “carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. . ..”  The additional limitation?  The Second Amendment does not contemplate the right of the American people to drag around “dangerous and unusual weapons.”  Indeed, Scalia recognized that the right of citizens to rise up today and grab a musket in the fight against “Federal tyranny” would do little good in any confrontation involving the power of the State and its modern military muscle.  And to this inequity, remarkably enough, what of Scalia’s response?  Essentially, too damn bad.
Writes Scalia:
“But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right [to bear arms].”
Stop the presses, folks, the SCOTUS has spoken.  Thus, the “right to bear arms” may not be abridged, even though the exercise of that “right” may no longer be up to the historic task of overthrowing those heathen Feds.  And, unless I am missing something, isn’t that effectively the exact same thing that the “gun control” lobby is arguing?  Justice Scalia seems to have clearly recognized that the Second Amendment cannot be read as permitting an “arm’s race” between individual Americans and the Federal Government.  As Scalia points out, “no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks,” not to mention the White House’s access to subs, WMD and nuclear weapons.  So, unlikely as it may seem, the battle has been joined, and framed by a very conservative Supreme Court: We cannot ban all personal weapons but, by golly, we should try to ban a great many of those currently available.
That’s where the conversation begins, then, I think.  We cannot rid ourselves of all guns, so we must find a line and draw it firmly.  We can start by allowing those weapons powerful enough to take down Bambi, and then prohibit anything that would be of no real use against a tank. And no “slippery slope” arguments, please, they were already considered dumb before the end of first year law school.  You know the drill, “if they take away your 40 round drum ‘sweetsweeper,’ next thing you know they’ll be taking away your slingshots.”  If you hear someone make such a “slippery slope” argument, ignore them.  If you find yourself making one, stop, and call me for help.  They are the refuge of the intellectually impaired.  We CAN draw a line.  We MUST draw a line.  And if the life-blood of fewer babies spills onto the linoleum as a consequence, those were lines well worth drawing.  Let get our pencils out, and start, straight away.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*


*


Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) – Berkeslaw

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

This is where you should answer the most common questions prospective customers might have. It’s a good idea to cover things like your return policy, product warranty info, shipping and returns, etc. Check out the examples below.


What’s your return policy?

Return any of our products–no questions asked–within 30 days of purchase. We even pay return shipping.


Do you ship oversees and to P.O. boxes?

Yes, we’ll ship your package anywhere that can accept deliveries.


Do you have customer service?

Of course! Our friendly and knowledgeable customer services reps are available to answer your questions 24/7/365.

Disclaimer – Berkeslaw

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Thank you for visiting my blog (the “Blog”); however you got here, I am honored that you took the time to stop by and review the materials presented, and the services offered. Please be advised that what you read and see here has been prepared, or is being presented, for general informational purposes only to those who visit the Blog in order to learn more about my law firm, Berkeslaw (the “Firm”), and the services we offer. Nothing contained, printed, stated and/or archived herein, including any and all of the articles, tweets and comments posted, is not, nor can it be construed as constituting, “legal advice” of any kind or nature, and is not to be acted on as such. The materials on my blog may not be current, and its contents are subject to change without notice. The opinions expressed herein are my own, and are just that: Opinions.

Terms of Use


By your use and visitation of this site, you hereby acknowledge and agree that the Blog, and the information contained and/or transmitted herein, and/or your receipt of same, does not create, nor is it intended to create, an “attorney-client relationship.” Under no circumstances should you rely upon your transmission of an e-mail using my Blog to create an attorney-client relationship, or have any such expectation. Visitors to the Blog should not act upon any information contained herein in this without first consulting legal counsel of their own directly. If you have questions about the law, or a particular legal issue or problem, please feel free to make an appointment to speak with me, but it is essential for your own protection that you understand that nothing you read or review in this Blog is being provided in the course, conduct or context of an attorney-client relationship. Different countries, States, counties, cities, districts, and the like, all may have different laws, rules and regulations, and those may and do change from time to time, so notice is hereby given that nothing contained on this Blog is intended to constitute legal advice, or should it be used or understood as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney licensed in the appropriate jurisdiction.

Links To Other Sites


This Blog may from time to time include links to other Internet sites whose content, views, opinions and other materials are beyond my control. My firm is not responsible for the content of any such sites, and a link to such sites does not necessarily mean or imply my endorsement of the information, material, products or services contained on or accessible therein. You hereby acknowledge and agree that should you decide to link to other Internet sites, your use of such sites, and your use of any information, material, products and services offered by such sites, necessarily occur at your own risk.

Content

Please be advised that all of the content found on this Blog is provided “as is.” No representations of any kind are made that the content will be timely, factually accurate, error-free, and/or free of viruses or other harmful electronic elements. Moreover, you should not expect, nor is any representation herein made, that any alleged errors or defects will be corrected. The video and its content, the blog posts, tweets and other materials that appear on this Blog, and the opinions stated therein, are all my own (unless otherwise specified), and they may, from time to time, be considered controversial, inappropriate or offensive to some of those who visit. As individual tastes and opinions vary and change, please be advised that all content on this Blog is intended only for the purposes of information and/or to stimulate discussion or interest, and under no circumstances is my intent to alarm, dismay or offend anyone. The Firm makes no representations, express or implied, with respect to the timeliness, accuracy or completeness of any of the contents of this Blog, and expressly disclaims any liability or warranties, express or implied, including, without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or non-infringement. Your sole remedy for any dissatisfaction with any of the content of this Blog is to refrain from using it.

Privacy


The Firm has a deep and abiding respect for your privacy. If you contact us voluntarily regarding our services, we may collect the following categories of personal information: name, company name, title, email address, telephone and facsimile numbers, and mailing address.
 We do not sell, trade or rent personal information submitted by visitors to companies, mailing lists or organizations outside of this Firm.  However, please be advised that in no event are any “comments” that you submit, or information that you provide in response to the Blog, considered confidential attorney-client communications, protected by the attorney-client privilege. They are not thus privileged, and you should be aware of this fact when submitting anything to or on the Blog.

Contact Us – Berkeslaw

Contact Us

Contact Us

For any questions and/or concerns you may have, or to set up an appointment
to meet either by telephone or in person, please contact the Firm as follows:

David Berke (State Bar #123007)
B E R K E S L A W
7162 Beverly Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90036

Telephone: (323) 879-9115
Cell Phone: (310) 251-0700

email: [email protected]
Twitter: @berkeslaw

Please note that the Firm does not employ a fax machine, believing it to be obsolete technology. Rather than pass along ink costs to you, the consumer, we ask that you “go green” and email documents instead.

If you really are serious about reaching me, then please make certain that you always favor email over voice-mail when leaving messages. I may just be out for a moment, walking Butters, but I will have my Blackberry with me. If I am out for coffee with a client, then I will have an iPad.  In other words, emails are checked obsessively, while voice-mail messages invariable disappear into a cosmic black hole. Even the voice-mail on my cell phone is deactivated, for goodness’ sakes. Finally, for all of you zealous attorneys out there — you know who you are — notice is hereby given that this blog may not be used for the purposes of providing ex parte notice, as the blog is not intended for the purposes of day-to-day litigation, and it is thus not necessarily reviewed regularly.

Please Let Us Know How We Can Help

b e r k e s l a w Citizen’s United: SCOTUS Double-Speak

Citizen’s United: SCOTUS Double-Speak

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 130 S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the federal government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions.  In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals, as protected by the First Amendment.

Since decided, Citizens United has been widely condemned by a large swath of the American public, even by some who originally thought it a great victory.  In fact, I believe that Citizens United  will ultimately be known as one of the most infamous SCOTUS decisions in U.S. history, and that future Courts — or even the one as near-currently constituted — will move to curb its scope and/or overturn it altogether. Indeed, the Montana State Supreme Court has already issued a direct challenge to Citizens United, setting up another round of the same fight in the very near future.

Although not often stated as such, it seems clear that the real objection to Citizens United is the visceral sense of result orientation underlying the Court’s decision. Thus, it was correctly feared that the (fairly) predictable block of 5 conservative justices were going to find a way to lift the limitations on corporate political donations; it was simply a matter of finding a plausible justification. “Corporations are people” was the dismaying result.

As infuriating as the Citizens United is, however, it is not the ”corporations as people” excuse that I see as being the problem. The legal fiction of a corporation’s “citizenry” has been a feature of Anglo-American jurisprudence for a great while. The law wants corporations to be identifiable as belonging to one state or another for any number of important reasons, such as diversity (i.e., one means of determining Federal jurisdiction), deciding “choice of laws,” and/or the rules governing service of process.  All of these (and other) important procedural/due process considerations are determined by the “citizenship” of a corporation.

Accordingly, it is no great leap of legal fiction to go from (1) acknowledging a corporation may be deemed to a “citizen” of one state or another, to (1) treating that same corporation as being an “individual” for purposes of political action and contribution.  And yet that is not the failing of Citizens United.  The failing of the decision is, quite bluntly, that in the exercise of its “result orientation,” the Court chose the wrong result; just because a tenuous legal link could be articulated, does not mean it should have been.

Corporations and unions do not “speak,” they corrupt, or at least have the power to do so if left untrammeled.  The SCOTUS was under no compulsion to liken them to “individuals” for First Amendment purposes. There are a number of rights granted/protected by the fabulous First: A prohibition against the government establishment of religion, or abridging freedom of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Do corporations and/or unions require these additional First Amendment protections?  If we grant them one such right, do they not then qualify for all?  Of course not, absurdity reigns.

Corporations are not “individuals,” except as to those limited legally fictitious identities that we grant them in order to serve basic jurisdictional requirements.  The Citizens United decision, on the other hand, is a travesty, a thinly disguised — or perhaps completely transparent — power-grab by the monied elite to legalize the purchase of political office. It is bad enough that now one almost need be a multi-millionaire to even qualify as a candidate for higher office; but just in case you are not, Citizens United is now available to make up the difference.

 

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*


*



Blog – Berkeslaw

Recent Posts

About Us – Berkeslaw

About Us

About the Firm

Hello, my name is David Berke, and I have been a Los Angeles lawyer for the past 27 years.  I began my legal education at Osgoode Hall in Toronto (Canada’s finest law school, in my home town), before completing my degree at UCLA in 1985. I first joined a marquee New York law firm, before making my way to a Westside law firm specializing in entertainment litigation. During my 5 years at the firm, I had the good fortune of learning my craft under the tutelage of two great lawyers, one, a brilliant law firm manager, and the other, one of the finest trial attorneys in the country, and someone I count among the best people I know. In 1989, however, I made the decision to open up my own law practice, a scary enough choice, but one made for a very specific reason.  Thus, the only true ambition I really ever had in life was to be the father of a family and, as I watched my colleagues miss innumerable milestones, vacations, and sometimes even the most modest family outings, I knew that big firm practice was incompatible with the type of parenting I wanted to experience and enjoy.

So, with in-house jobs becoming more scarce all the time, my only real option was to open my own practice.  Unlike others similarly situated, however, I opted not to design my practice around high volume fields traditional to solo practitioners such as plaintiff’s personal injury or worker’s compensation. Instead, I choose a rather unconventional approach, whereby I essentially conduct a big firm practice by myself, favoring the maintenance of a few cases (from small to large, depending on the circumstances)  which command – and receive –  a greater degree of my personal attention. As such, I have often taken on very large matters for very prominent clients, but invariably for the purpose of keeping my clients out of the spotlight rather than place them in it. In this fashion, therefore, you might say that I am one of the best known lawyers in Los Angeles that you’ve never heard of, because I would rather focus on my clients’ needs than make a “name” for myself, and/or a spectacle of those I serve.

Please do not imagine, however, that my practice is somehow limited to the representation of well known entertainment figures; far from it.  I have a wide range of legal experience involving contractual and business disputes of all kinds, as well as defamation, copyright, trademark (and other IP), employment matters, plaintiff’s class actions, and still others.  There are also occasions where I am called upon to bring my litigation experience to bear to assist in cases which lie outside my traditional areas of expertise, such as probate, family law, and elder law.

As circumstances require, I will take my cases either to trial or arbitration, historically with great success.  Nonetheless, the economies of the day, combined with my natural inclinations and my ethical compass, move me instinctively towards finding alternative means of resolving disputes, as opposed to churning my cases for legal fees. I want my clients to win, and so they do, but “winning” these days more often than not means arriving at a result that is satisfying, preserves dignity, and permits my clients to proceed with their lives with litigation far in their rear view mirrors as quickly and efficiently as possible.

As stated above, there is a legal maxim which holds, “for every wrong there is a remedy.” I want to be that remedy. Call or email me and let’s see what we can do to help.

About firm – Berkeslaw

About firm

About the Firm

Hello, my name is David Berke, and I have been a Los Angeles lawyer for the past 27 years.  I began my legal education at Osgoode Hall in Toronto (Canada’s finest law school, in my home town), before completing my degree at UCLA in 1985. I first joined a marquee New York law firm, before making my way to a Westside law firm specializing in entertainment litigation. During my 5 years at the firm, I had the good fortune of learning my craft under the tutelage of two great lawyers, one, a brilliant law firm manager, and the other, one of the finest trial attorneys in the country, and someone I count among the best people I know. In 1989, however, I made the decision to open up my own law practice, a scary enough choice, but one made for a very specific reason.  Thus, the only true ambition I really ever had in life was to be the father of a family and, as I watched my colleagues miss innumerable milestones, vacations, and sometimes even the most modest family outings, I knew that big firm practice was incompatible with the type of parenting I wanted to experience and enjoy.

So, with in-house jobs becoming more scarce all the time, my only real option was to open my own practice.  Unlike others similarly situated, however, I opted not to design my practice around high volume fields traditional to solo practitioners such as plaintiff’s personal injury or worker’s compensation. Instead, I choose a rather unconventional approach, whereby I essentially conduct a big firm practice by myself, favoring the maintenance of a few cases (from small to large, depending on the circumstances)  which command – and receive –  a greater degree of my personal attention. As such, I have often taken on very large matters for very prominent clients, but invariably for the purpose of keeping my clients out of the spotlight rather than place them in it. In this fashion, therefore, you might say that I am one of the best known lawyers in Los Angeles that you’ve never heard of, because I would rather focus on my clients’ needs than make a “name” for myself, and/or a spectacle of those I serve.

Please do not imagine, however, that my practice is somehow limited to the representation of well known entertainment figures; far from it.  I have a wide range of legal experience involving contractual and business disputes of all kinds, as well as defamation, copyright, trademark (and other IP), employment matters, plaintiff’s class actions, and still others.  There are also occasions where I am called upon to bring my litigation experience to bear to assist in cases which lie outside my traditional areas of expertise, such as probate, family law, and elder law.

As circumstances require, I will take my cases either to trial or arbitration, historically with great success.  Nonetheless, the economies of the day, combined with my natural inclinations and my ethical compass, move me instinctively towards finding alternative means of resolving disputes, as opposed to churning my cases for legal fees. I want my clients to win, and so they do, but “winning” these days more often than not means arriving at a result that is satisfying, preserves dignity, and permits my clients to proceed with their lives with litigation far in their rear view mirrors as quickly and efficiently as possible.

As stated above, there is a legal maxim which holds, “for every wrong there is a remedy.” I want to be that remedy. Call or email me and let’s see what we can do to help.