For me, responsiveness and efficiency are the most important attributes in serving a client. Maintaining those standards in the highest is the commitment I make every day I come to work.
- Daniel L. Baxter

Daniel L. Baxter
Daniel L. Baxter Partner
AttorneysBio_phoneIcon(916) 441-2430
AttorneysBio_phoneIcon(916) 441-2430
AttorneysBio_downloadIconDownload CV
  • General Information
  • Client/Judge/Opposing Counsel Comments
  • Representative Matters
  • Licenses and Admissions
  • Professional Involvement and Memberships
  • Presentations and Publications
  • Honors and Awards
  • Civic and Community Involvement
  • Personal


University of California, Los AngelesJ.D. (1999)

University of North Carolina at Chapel HillB.A. (with distinction) (1996)

Professional Experience

  • At his core, Dan is a trial lawyer.  His love of the courtroom has resulted in significant success for his clients, including several multi-million dollar verdicts.
  • In one of his recent victories, Dan - assisted by Wilke Fleury paralegal Sharon Brazell - procured a $4,000,000 verdict against the United States arising out of work performed by client Magnus Pacific Corporation for the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission.
  • In another case, Dan obtained a multi-million dollar federal court jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs Brian Dawe, Gary Harkins, and Flat Iron Mountain Associates against the California Correctional Peace Officers’ Association, Corrections USA, and two individual defendants for breach of contract and defamation - among other claims - stemming from a campaign of misconduct perpetrated by the defendants over an extended period of time. In addition to trying the case, Dan successfully briefed and argued the Defendants’ appeal of the jury verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • In cooperation with colleague Tom Redmon, Dan successfully represented a Rocklin, California wood products company in a suit seeking damages arising from a faulty power generation system purchased from a Pennsylvania manufacturer. After a six week trial, the jury issued a $6 million verdict.