No. 01 Vol. I · Practice Notes
The cases nobody wants to take are the ones that matter most.
A working philosophy for representing Central Valley families in the civil disputes other firms quietly turn down.
There is a kind of case that walks into every firm in town and walks out unsigned. The client has a real injury, a real story, and a paper trail any honest reading would call compelling — but the defendant has resources, the procedure is byzantine, and the payday is uncertain. The firm runs the math and passes.
We started this practice on the principle that those are the cases worth taking. Not all of them — we are not unselective, and we are not heroes. But the ones where the legal merit is real, the harm is documented, and the courage to litigate is the only thing missing, those we take.
This page exists because, three years in, enough people have asked us how we choose. The honest answer is structural: we built a practice that doesn't require every case to be a six-figure win. That changes the math on which clients we can say yes to.
Three years in. Public record.
How the practice is structured.
The first conversation costs nothing and runs as long as it needs to.
Most firms charge a consultation fee or rush a 20-minute screen. We don't. The first conversation is free and unrushed, because the cases that walk through our door are usually the ones that took years to articulate.
If we say no, we say why.
We turn down more matters than we accept. When we do, you get a written read on whether another firm — or another approach — is the right path. No referral kickbacks.
Fee structures match the case, not the firm's overhead.
Contingency, hybrid, flat-fee, and traditional hourly are all on the table. We pick the structure that keeps incentives aligned with the outcome you actually want — not the structure that maximizes our take.
Selected matters.
A partial public record. Names and identifying details redacted; the shape of each case is honest.
- 2026
Wage theft — agricultural employer of 40+ Central Valley workers
Class action, settled at mediation. Recovery distributed to workers within 90 days of settlement.
- 2025
Premises liability — multi-tenant building, Fresno
Tried to verdict for plaintiff. Property management practices changed across the operator's regional portfolio after the ruling.
- 2025
Consumer fraud — auto dealership chain, Madera
Class certified, settled pre-trial. The dealership's contract template changed statewide as part of the consent terms.
- 2024
Construction defect — single-family residence, Clovis
Settled at the doorstep. Builder restored the home and paid temporary housing for the family during repair.
- 2024
Employment discrimination — healthcare employer, Fresno
Confidential resolution. Employer adopted revised hiring and promotion protocols.
A word on the cases we won't take.
We do not represent landlords against tenants. We do not represent collection agencies. We do not take work that functionally amounts to wage suppression against working people — even when the legal posture is winnable.
This is a choice, not a policy. Other firms make different choices and we respect their right to. Ours is simply that we would rather build a smaller practice on the cases we are proud to argue than a larger one on the cases we are not.
If you are a tenant facing eviction, a worker facing wage theft, a family facing harm from a corporate actor with legal counsel — we are the practice you came here to find.
The people who will read your file.
Three partners. Two associates. Every case has named counsel from intake to verdict. You will not be passed to a junior you didn't meet at the consultation.
Hannah G. Whitcomb
Founding partner · Litigation
Twenty-one years at the bar. Eleven of them at a national firm before opening this practice in 2014. Lead counsel on more than forty trials, with appellate experience at the Ninth Circuit and the California Supreme Court. Adjunct faculty at UCSF Hastings, teaching trial advocacy each spring.
Hannah takes the cases that need to be tried — the ones where settlement isn't the right outcome and the defense knows it. She does not lose her composure in a courtroom; she also does not lose her sense of humor.
Marcus T. Ó Briain
Partner · Negotiation and settlement
Trained at the New York Attorney General's office before crossing the country to private practice. Marcus closes most of the cases that don't go to trial — he has a temperament suited to the long quiet phone calls where the deal actually gets done.
If your case is going to settle on terms you can live with, there is a high probability Marcus is the one on the other end of the line with opposing counsel. He has never sent a demand letter he didn't mean.
Priya R. Krishnan
Partner · Appellate and complex motion
A former federal clerk and the writer in the room. Priya drafts every appellate brief the firm files, and she writes the dispositive motions in our trial cases. Her brief in People v. Camara is regularly cited in California criminal procedure casebooks.
If the case turns on what's in writing rather than what's said in court, Priya owns the writing. She also owns the standard by which the rest of us write.
06 — Selected writings & appearances
What we have written. Where we have spoken.
- 2026 “The disappearing trial: settlement pressure in modern civil practice”
Whitcomb, H. G. — California Bar Journal, spring issue. A reflection on why fewer than 2% of civil cases go to verdict, and what gets lost when they don't.
- 2025 “On compassion and counsel”
Ó Briain, M. T. — keynote address, Central Valley Bar Association annual dinner. On what the practice of plaintiff-side law asks of the person practicing it.
- 2025 “The brief is the argument”
Krishnan, P. R. — appellate practice seminar, UCSF Hastings continuing legal education. A two-hour lecture on briefing dispositive motions in California civil procedure.
- 2024 “What we don't take, and why”
Whitcomb, H. G. — opinion column, The Fresno Bee. On the firm's decision to decline landlord-side and collections work, and what it has cost — and earned — in practice.
- 2024 People v. Camara (appellate brief)
Krishnan, P. R., on behalf of amicus. California Supreme Court, criminal procedure. Brief is taught in introductory appellate practice courses at three California law schools.
07 — Questions we answer most often
Before you call us, you may be wondering.
Do you charge for the initial consultation?
The first call — typically forty minutes — is free. We use it to understand your situation, tell you honestly whether your matter is one we are positioned to help with, and recommend other counsel if it is not. We do not bill in any way for that call. If we decide to engage, we discuss fee structure separately.
How do you bill — hourly, contingency, or flat fee?
All three, depending on the case. Personal injury and most plaintiff-side civil work is contingency. Trust and estate work and corporate counsel work is typically hourly. Discrete projects (a brief, a single negotiation, a will) we handle on flat fee. We discuss fee structure in writing at the engagement letter.
How long will my case take?
The honest answer is “longer than you want it to and probably shorter than you fear.” For civil litigation that does not settle early, eighteen months to verdict is typical. Settlement before trial may take six to twelve. We will give you a realistic timeline at the engagement and update it at each significant milestone.
Will I have to testify?
Possibly. In most civil matters, plaintiffs sit for deposition; in cases that go to trial, plaintiffs typically testify. We will prepare you exhaustively. We do not let our clients walk into a courtroom or a deposition unprepared — the preparation itself is part of the work.
What if I'm not sure my matter is “worth” pursuing?
Then call us anyway. Forty minutes will tell us — and tell you — whether there is a case here. If there isn't, we will say so plainly, and if we believe another lawyer would be a better fit we will name two or three. The cost to you of that conversation is the time it takes to have it.