Harry Chamberlain is a Shareholder of Buchalter, an Am Law 150 firm, with 11 offices across the Western U.S. For over 40 years, he has served as trial and appellate counsel on behalf of Fortune 500 companies, and a variety of public and private sector clients in complex litigation matters. He is certified as an Appellate Specialist by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization, handling hundreds of appeals around the country, including numerous cases before the California Supreme Court and the highest courts of other states.

Before joining Buchalter, Harry was general counsel for California based professional liability insurers and managed the law department of a national group of commercial insurance and financial service companies. He is past president of California Defense Counsel and the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel, preeminent associations of civil defense trial and appellate lawyers. He writes and lectures widely on topics regarding complex litigation and insurance law.

Honors and Recognitions

• State Bar of California Certified Specialist–Appellate Law
• Super Lawyers–2005 to Present
• Best Lawyers in America, Appellate Practice, 2023 & 2024
• Sacramento Magazine’s Top Lawyer, Appellate Law, 2023

Bar Admissions

• California
• District of Columbia
• North Carolina

Education

• University of California, Hastings College of the Law
• San Diego State University

Significant Accomplishments

• Logan v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 365, review granted, No. S276545 (Sept. 26, 2022) (petitioners’ counsel): Consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, does an advance medical directive encompass the agent’s authority on the patient behalf to agree to arbitrate disputes with medical providers?
• Jarman v. HCR Manor Care (2020) 10 Cal.5th 375 (amicus): Health & Safety Code provides a limited private remedy of $500 “per lawsuit” for a nursing home’s alleged violations of CA’s Patient Bill of Rights
• Parrish v. Latham & Watkins LLP (2017) 3 Cal.5th 767 (amicus): Malicious prosecution action by former employees against their employer’s counsel was barred by the “interim adverse judgment” rule based on denial of a pretrial motion, even though the trial court later found employer’s action was brought in bad faith
• Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 148 (amicus): Aggravated “neglect” within the meaning of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Care Act requires plaintiff to show that the defendant health care provider had a “custodial relationship” with the elder patient
• Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225 (amicus): The one-year statute of limitations for actions against an attorney (Code Civ. Proc. § 340.6) applies to a former client’s claim for reimbursement of unearned attorney fees advanced in a lawsuit if the claim arises from and is related to performance of a “professional obligation”
• Crane v. R.R. Crane Invest. Corp. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 748: Disgruntled shareholder is entitled to receive appraised value for his shares under Corp. Code § 2000, but not prejudgment interest on the appraisal award
• Healthsmart Pacific, Inc. v. Kabateck (2016) 7 Cal.App.5th 416: $60 million media defamation suit was an improper SLAPP against opposing counsel barred by the “fair report privilege” under Civil Code § 47(d)
• Thayer v. Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 141 : Action by a client’s spouse – claiming that her husband’s attorneys mishandled a class action settlement – was barred as an improper SLAPP suit
• Prospect Medical Group v. Northridge Emergency Medical Group (2009) 45 Cal.4th 497: California statutes prohibit hospitals from “balance billing” patients for medical fees owed by their HMO
• Mayer v. L&B Real Estate (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1231: Property owner’s Due Process right to set aside an invalid tax sale does not expire until possession is “disturbed” by a valid notice of sale from the tax collector
• City of Anaheim v. Angels Baseball LP (2008) 2008 WL 527 4631: Adopting the team name “Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim” did not violate stadium lease with the City of Anaheim
• Cohn v. Corinthian Colleges, Angels Baseball LP (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 523: Mother’s Day tote bag giveaway at Angels’ baseball game was not unlawful discrimination against men
• Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Hosp. Dist. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 192 (amicus): Anti-SLAPP statute applies to disciplinary decisions by a hospital peer review committee
• Jarrow Formulas Inc. v. La Marche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728: Lawyers may challenge claims for malicious prosecution under the anti-SLAPP statute, and recover legal fees if they prevail
• Viner v. Sweet (2003) 32 Cal.4th 1232 (amicus): A client suing for legal malpractice must prove that a more favorable outcome would have resulted “but for” the lawyer’s negligence
• Musser v. Provencher (2002) 28 Cal.4th. 274 (amicus): Attorneys may seek indemnification for co-counsel’s errors committed during the joint representation of their mutual client
• Summit Financial Holdings Ltd. v. Continental Lawyers Title Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1160 (amicus): Escrow agents owe no duty to protect interests of third parties outside of the transaction
• Shade Foods, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of America (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847: $14 million bad faith and punitive damages verdict reversed for insufficient evidence of malice
• Potvin v. MetLife Ins. Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1060: Case-by-case analysis is required to determine if Due Process precludes the at-will termination of a medical provider by a health plan
• Temple Community Hosp. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 464, Cedars-Sinai Med. Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1 (amicus): No tort remedy for “spoliation of evidence” under California law
• Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 456: Waste disposal company has no liability to a horseback rider for noises made during routine trash collection operations
• Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1187: Absolute litigation privilege bars private actions against attorneys under Business & Professions Code §17200
• Bay Cities Paving & Grading Inc. v. Lawyers’ Mut. Ins. Co. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 854 (amicus): Insurance policy limits available for “related” claims requires a common sense reading of the contract

• Buchalter COVID-19 Client Alert: San Francisco Moves to Lowest COVID Tier in California, Begins Process of Reopening Non-Essential Offices; Other Bay Area Counties Slower to Follow

  By Harry W. R. Chamberlain II |November 2020

Additional Articles

• Ex-Hospital CEO Says Attys’ Prostitution Claim Defamed Him
• The “Nuts and Bolts” of Anti-SLAPP
• Advanced Appellate Practice Roundtable
• Out of Balance: ‘Balance-Billing’ Unfairly Puts the Patient in the Middle