• Share
  • Email
  • Print

The K&L Gates Appellate Litigation practice handles important appeals affecting business, private clients, and public clients, ranging from overturning unfavorable and maintaining favorable trial results to addressing cutting-edge statutory, constitutional, and public-policy issues.  Our lawyers have broad experience in the nuances of appellate practice, having argued cases in the United States Supreme Court, in all the United States Courts of Appeals, and in the appellate courts of most jurisdictions across the United States.  Our lawyers combine exceptional written and oral advocacy skills with thorough substantive and procedural knowledge.  We understand how high-profile disputes should be litigated and resolved, and we bring our collective experience to bear on every client matter.

The National Law Journal and Best Lawyers in America have recognized K&L Gates’ appellate practice as among the best in the nation.

For many litigants, the ultimate result comes down to an appeal.  An appeals court can take away a hard-won victory or correct a harsh defeat.  K&L Gates’ appellate lawyers combine impeccable research with a strong commitment to written composition of the highest quality and compelling oral-argument skills.  We strive for clarity, concision, and cogency in making the kinds of arguments that matter on appeal to deliver results for our clients.  Whether we serve as primary, consulting, or amicus counsel before an appellate court, our role can be crucial to achieving appellate success.

We frequently partner with our trial colleagues in high-stakes litigation to ensure that key appellate issues are introduced and appropriately preserved in the trial record.  Our appellate record of success includes many published opinions dealing with matters of first impression as well as significant interpretations of precedent.

Clients frequently retain K&L Gates to provide representation as special appellate counsel and to draft amicus curiae briefs on behalf of publicly and privately held companies, government entities, nonprofits, and trade associations.  Our awareness of amicus opportunities in the appellate courts has been valuable to clients that have needed to influence the development of the law in cases to which they are not parties.  Because we understand how amicus briefs are most likely to influence a court, we avoid just repeating the arguments the parties have made and, instead, offer different perspectives that the court will find helpful.

Our appellate work has covered a wide variety of subject areas, including procedural issues such as jurisdiction, choice of forum, and evidentiary matters as well as highly complex substantive areas such as

  • employment
  • environmental liabilities
  • tort and product liability
  • intellectual property
  • consumer claims
  • financial services
  • insurance coverage
  • antitrust
  • bet-the-company contract disputes
  • immigration
  • tax

K&L Gates lawyers are currently litigating appeals pending in most of the U.S. Courts of Appeals and in state appellate courts across the nation. They have filed amicus curiae briefs in the United States Supreme Court, in most of the federal courts of appeals, and in state courts.

Areas of Practice

NameTitleOfficeContact
Of Counsel
P +1.412.355.6742
Partner
P +1.206.370.8101
Associate
P +1.212.536.3973
Associate
P +1.412.355.8233
Associate
P +1.312.807.4436
Partner
P +1.415.882.8005
Of Counsel
P +1.717.231.5817
Partner
P +1.212.536.4808
Of Counsel
P +1.412.355.6446
Of Counsel
P +1.412.355.6544
Partner
P +1.973.848.4048
Partner
P +1.617.261.3178
Partner
P +1.704.331.7453
Partner
P +1.412.355.6243
Associate
P +1.202.778.9400
Partner
P +1.412.355.6274
Partner
P +1.717.231.5820
Associate
P +1.415.882.8017
Partner
P +1.206.370.7655
Associate
P +1.412.355.7412
Partner
P +1.310.552.5547
Of Counsel
P +1.206.370.8339
Partner
P +1.717.231.5876
Partner
P +1.305.539.3378
Counsel
P +1.206.370.7590
Partner
P +1.202.778.9338
Partner
P +1.617.261.3128
Partner
P +1.843.579.5660
Partner
P +1.717.231.4570
Associate
P +1.919.743.7322
Of Counsel
P +1.412.355.6488
Associate
P +1.305.539.3382
Partner
P +1.973.848.4064
Of Counsel
P +1.412.355.6498
Partner
P +1.202.778.9204
Associate
P +1.202.778.9180
Of Counsel
P +1.717.231.4505
Partner
P +1.202.778.9248
Partner
P +1.202.661.6271
Partner
P +1.412.355.6334
Associate
P +1.415.882.8230
Partner
P +1.206.370.7640
Partner
P +1.312.781.6028
Partner
P +1.212.536.3918
Partner
P +1.617.951.9127
Partner
P +1.919.466.1182
Associate
P +1.512.482.6816
Partner
P +1.412.355.8618
Partner
P +1.817.347.5273
Partner
P +1.412.355.8274
Associate
P +1.206.370.7663
Partner
P +1.412.355.8926
Administrative Partner (San Francisco)
P +1.415.249.1028
Partner
P +1.202.661.3764
Partner
P +1.412.355.6215
Associate
P +1.206.370.7674
Associate
P +1.214.939.6235
Associate
P +1.843.579.5639
Partner
P +1.617.951.9134
Partner
P +1.202.778.9408
Of Counsel
P +1.412.355.8917
Partner
P +1.973.848.4026
Counsel
P +48.22.653.4214
Partner
P +1.206.370.8368
Of Counsel
P +1.412.355.6478
Partner
P +1.206.370.7804
Partner
P +1.412.355.8365
Partner
P +1.415.882.8031
Associate
P +1.206.370.8017
Of Counsel
P +1.206.370.8386
Showing 1-10 of 15 results
1 | 2   Next >
Paul Bishop, et al., v. Wells Fargo & Co., et al., 2016 WL 2587426 (2nd Cir. 2016). Representing Wells Fargo & Co. in a False Claims Act case, K&L Gates lawyers persuaded the Second Circuit to affirm a district court’s order of dismissal.
Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Beauvais, 188 So.3d 938, (Fla. 3d DCA April 13, 2016).  K&L Gates lawyers represented Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas before a three-judge panel and then before the en banc Florida Third District Court of Appeal in a case testing the application of Florida’s statute of limitations for mortgage foreclosure to a current foreclosure action when the lender or its servicer had brought but not pursued a previous foreclosure.  In a closely watched case, the en banc court agreed with the arguments K&L Gates lawyers made, and the court held that the statute of limitations did not bar the subsequent foreclosure.
Montgomery Cnty. v. MERSCORP Inc., 795 F.3d 372 (3rd Cir. 2015).  K&L Gates lawyers represented the Pennsylvania Bankers Association as amicus curiae in an appeal testing whether Pennsylvania’s recording statutes are mandatory and whether the MERS system gives rise to liability for failure to comply with the recording statute.  The Third Circuit held that the recording statutes are not mandatory.
Banquez v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 2014 WL 7735837 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 3, 2015).  K&L Gates lawyers represented Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in a successful appeal to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court and obtained an order directing the trial court to send the plaintiff’s claims to arbitration. 
Denise Minter et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al.762 F.3d 339; Bradley Petry et al. v. Prosperity Mortgage Company et al., 758 F.3d 543 (4th Cir. 2014).  After more than six years of litigation, K&L Gates lawyers obtained favorable decisions from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Ventures, LLC (“Wells Fargo”) in two related class-action lawsuits.
In the first appeal, Denise Minter et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al. 762 F.3d 339, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment entered in Wells Fargo’s favor after a five-week jury trial in which the plaintiffs alleged that Wells Fargo’s joint-venture company was a sham that failed to provide customers with proper disclosures under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
In Petry et al. v. Prosperity Mortgage Company et al., 758 F.3d 543, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s entry of judgment in Wells Fargo’s favor in a case in which the plaintiffs asserted claims under Maryland’s Finder’s Fee Act.
Szafranski v. Dunston, 393 III.Dec. 604 (Ill. Ct. App., 1st Dist., 2015).  The Illinois Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in favor of K&L Gates’ client, a woman who sought custody of cryopreserved pre-embryos in a dispute with her former boyfriend.  The boyfriend sought review from the Illinois Supreme Court, but K&L Gates lawyers persuaded that court to deny review.  The case garnered significant media attention, including coverage on CNN, NBC, the Daily Mail, and the ABA Journal.
Newman Dev. Group of Pottstown, LLC v. Genuardi's Family Mkts., Inc., 52 A.3d 1233 (Pa. 2012).  K&L Gates lawyers represented a group of former appellate judges and current appellate advocates acting as amici curiae seeking to persuade the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that the intermediate appellate court’s waiver analysis was incorrect and overly harsh.  The Supreme Court quoted the K&L Gates brief and agreed with the position espoused by K&L Gates’ client.
Georgia Pacific, LLC v. Farrar,69 A.3d 1028, 432 Md. 523 (Md. 2013).  K&L Gates lawyers represented an amicus curiae supporting the reversal of an intermediate appellate court’s determination that a company that manufactured products containing asbestos did not owe a duty to warn family members of persons using the product.  The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed and reversed.
Gillard v. AIG Ins. Co., 15 A.3d 44, 609 Pa. 65 (Pa. 2011).  K&L Gates lawyers served as counsel to amicus curiae seeking reversal of an intermediate appellate court’s restrictive interpretation of the attorney-client privilege.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with the position asserted by the amicus curiae and quoted at length from the K&L Gates brief.
Kilmer v. Elexco Land Services Company, 990 A.2d 1147 (Pa. 2010).  K&L Gates lawyers represented Southwestern Energy Production Company and Elexco Land Services Company before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a case of first impression determining whether Pennsylvania’s Minimum Royalty Act should invalidate thousands of oil-and-gas leases.  The court agreed with K&L Gates’ argument that the statute should be interpreted in a way that preserved the leases.