O’Melveny
We are only able to display limited information for this firm. We display more complete information for all of the following firms:
Lauded as 'extremely smart, excellent writers and oral advocates', the team at O’Melveny is well-versed in every aspect of Supreme Court practice, including briefing and arguing merits cases and executing amicus curiae strategy and representing amici at all stages. 'Outstanding writer and thinker' Jonathan Hacker, who is based in Washington, D.C., steers the 'extremely impressive' practice and draws on experience arguing appeals in every federal circuit and numerous state courts. Also noted is 'outstanding appellate advocate' Anton Metlitsky, who is based in New York and recently assisted Kenvue Inc. in securing a victory in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in a case claiming the Lactaid brand dietary supplements were misbranded as a drug in violation of state consumer protection laws. In Silicon Valley, key contact Jeffrey Fisher successfully argued on behalf of drivers who work with Uber, Lyft, and similar companies as independent contractors, guaranteeing them various benefits typically reserved for employees.
Legal 500 Editorial commentary
Testimonials
Collated independently by Legal 500 research team.
- ‘O'Melveny's appellate practice, led by Jonathan Hacker, is outstanding. Jonathan's practice of getting involved at the early pre-trial stage of complex litigation is highly valuable. Jonathan is clear-eyed, an outstanding writer and thinker, and helps his clients focus on the heart of the dispute from the outside.’
- ‘Jonathan Hacker is the best appellate advocate I have ever encountered. He is smart, brings a great positive perspective to challenging disputes, and is an amazing writer and oral advocate. He is passionate and also a fun person to be in the trenches with.'
Key clients
- Chubb
- Kenvue
Work highlights
Acted for Vigilant Insurance Co. before the California Supreme Court in Another Planet Entertainment LLC v. Vigilant Insurance Co., which held unanimously that the mere presence of the COVID-19 virus does not result in a distinct, demonstrable physical alteration to property.