Featured Practice

A successful appellate practice depends not only on first-rate legal analysis, but the ability to relate that analysis to the appellate court in a way that is meaningful and compelling. When representing a party who was unsuccessful before the trial court, the appellate lawyer must not only combat the presumption of correctness that attends to every trial court decision, but—depending on the issue under scrutiny—must overcome unfriendly standards of review that can make appellate courts reluctant to intervene. This requires the appellate lawyer to walk a fine line between forcefully asserting the error made by the trial court and respecting the judicial process (and the judicial officer) that produced the error. 

Similarly, when defending a trial court decision against an appeal, the appellate lawyer should be able to clearly and concisely tell the appellate court how—and why—the trial court got it right. This requires more than just a “me, too” filing that parrots the trial court’s ruling; instead, the lawyer should be able to tell the appellate court why the trial court’s decision is not only correct, but desirable. 

At Wilke Fleury, we bring these principles to life. Led by partner Dan Baxter, Wilke Fleury’s lawyers have successfully briefed and argued numerous appellate matters to conclusion. In 2010 alone, Mr. Baxter has procured two favorable results (one before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, one before California’s Third Appellate District) on behalf of Wilke Fleury client Michael Burkart, a trustee appointed by the United States Bankruptcy Court over a Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate. Also in 2010, associate Steve Williamson successfully procured the dismissal of an appeal in a medical malpractice case before appellate briefs were even submitted. Results like these keep our clients coming back.