Olson Hagel & Fishburn LLP is a seasoned, proven leader in litigation involving the political process, government administration and regulation, and public finance. Our litigation team includes attorneys with decades of experience in the California Attorney General's office, the California Department of Finance and the California Department of Personnel Administration. Olson, Hagel & Fishburn attorneys have appeared before the highest courts, including the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court.

Olson Hagel & Fishburn's impressive litigation record extends across diverse areas of litigation:

Appellate Practice

Olson, Hagel & Fishburn has an extensive appellate practice. This practice includes both "regular" appeals from trial court rulings, as well as original writs filed in the California Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court. Such writs are typically used when the constitutionality or legality of government action are at issue, when the government action is likely to have a significant impact upon the public or certain groups and prompt judicial review is necessary. Few law firms possess our level of expertise in navigating this complex area of the law, and even fewer are able to do it as efficiently and cost-effectively as Olson, Hagel & Fishburn.

Our appellate practice also includes preparation of amicus curiae ("friends of the court") briefs for persons or organizations who are not formal parties in a case but who wish to raise issues for the Court's consideration.

Election-Related Litigation

Olson Hagel & Fishburn has successfully litigated constitutional challenges to several statewide initiatives and has participated in some of the most significant campaign finance cases of the last decade.

In California Democratic Party v. Jones, the firm represented the plaintiffs in a challenge to Proposition 198, which required political parties to choose their nominees with "blanket" primary elections. The United States Supreme Court held the blanket primary was an unconstitutional restraint on the First Amendment rights of political parties.

In Bramberg v. Jones, the firm represented the plaintiffs in a challenge to Proposition 225, which penalized candidates who refused to support Congressional term limits. The California Supreme Court held that Proposition 225 violated Article V of the United States Constitution.

In another case dealing with initiatives, we represented the proponents of Proposition 99 (tobacco tax) in litigation that upheld the initiative's constitutionality.  (Kennedy Wholesale v. Board of Equalization.)  We later litigated American Lung Association v. Wilson, which prevented a diversion of more than $120 million from health education and research programs funded by Proposition 99.

Olson, Hagel & Fishburn has been involved in litigating the constitutionality of several major pieces of state and federal campaign finance legislation.  In McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the firm represented the California Democratic Party in a challenge to the new “McCain-Feingold” federal law.  The firm also successfully challenged a state law requiring the disclosure of certain donor information on campaign advertisements (California Democratic Party and California Republican Party v. FPPC), and participated in California Pro-Life Council v. Scully, a case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 208, California’s prior campaign finance law. 

Here is a sample Olson Hagel & Fishburn's significant election-related appellate litigation:

Government Law and Education Litigation

Olson, Hagel & Fishburn has conducted significant litigation related to state mandates, governmental regulation and public finance.

For example, we successfully represented the California Teachers’ Retirement Board in a lawsuit to recover over $500 million in public retirement funds wrongfully withheld by the state.  (Teachers’ Retirement Board v. Genest.)

The firm obtained a key ruling on the interpretation of the Brown Act, in which the Court of Appeal declared that closed-session discussions by public bodies are privileged and confidential, even during disputes over open meetings law requirements.  (Kleitman v. Superior Court.)  We have also been involved in Lexin v. Superior Court, a case before the California Supreme Court that presents far-reaching questions about the state’s conflict of interest laws and public employee participation on public retirement system boards.

Olson, Hagel & Fishburn has also participated in several lawsuits involving mandate reimbursement and revenue allocation between state and local governments. (County of Sonoma v. Commission on State Mandates and County of San Bernardino v. State of California.)  We have litigated the constitutionality of several state legislative attempts to limit its responsibility for mandate reimbursement under article XIII B of the constitution, and recently obtained a decision declaring the state’s practice of “deferring” payment to school districts unconstitutional. 

Olson Hagel & Fishburn represented the California School Boards Association in challenging the legislature’s attempt to transfer control of the Los Angeles Unified School District to the Mayor's office. (Mendoza v. State of California.)  We have also successfully challenged the State Board of Education’s textbook adoption process and recently obtained an order enjoining the State Board’s requirement that all eighth graders take Algebra I.

We often advise and represent districts and schools (public and chartered) in matters before the Education Audit Appeals Panel and have compiled a solid record obtaining substantial reductions in—or the complete reversal of—penalties associated with education audit findings.

Examples include:

Olson, Hagel & Fishburn appellate litigation in the areas of government law, public finance and education includes: