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.