| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Appellate work and legal writing have
been a significant part of Mr. Ehrlich’s practice since he
was first admitted to practice law in 1985. As an
associate with the Los Angeles law firm of Hufstedler,
Miller, Carlson & Beadsley, Mr. Ehrlich was privileged to
work with and be trained by brilliant lawyers like retired
California Supreme Court Justice Otto Kaus, retired
Federal Circuit Judge Shirley Hufstedler, and retired
Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Robert
Thompson. He also worked closely with two young partners,
Laurie Zelon and Dennis Perluss, who now sit as Justices
of the California Court of Appeal.
In his second year of practice, Mr. Ehrlich handled the primary briefing
in Smith v. Mulvaney (9th Cir. 1987) 827 F.2d 558, and two years later
he briefed, argued, and obtained favorable published decisions in Bell
v. 20th Century Ins. Co. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3rd 194 and Bell v. Superior
Court (20th Century Ins. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3rd 1103.
The bulk of appellate decisions are unpublished, with the courts only
publishing those that involve an issue of particular importance or that
raise a novel issue. Thirty of the appeals that Mr. Ehrlich has briefed
and argued have been published.
In all, Mr. Ehrlich has argued over 75 appeals, and has briefed or
supervised the briefing in over 175 appeals. He has also authored briefs
as amicus curiae in the California Supreme Court and the California
Courts of Appeal on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California,
United Policyholders, CalPIRG, and other consumer organizations. He is a
member of the Consumer Attorneys of California amicus committee. [List of the appellate decisions in Mr. Ehrlich's cases, and selected briefs]
| |
- UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America v. Ward, 526 U.S. 358 (1999),
which Mr. Ehrlich briefed and argued in the U.S.
Supreme Court. The issue raised by this case was
whether the federal statute governing employee benefit
plans, ERISA, overrode state insurance statutes and
rules, which provided considerable protection to
policyholders. In a unanimous decision the Supreme
Court adopted the position advocated by Mr. Ehrlich,
and limited ERISA’s preemptive scope. The Ward
decision benefited more than 80 million people who
obtained their health insurance, life insurance, or
disability insurance through their employer.
- Kotler v. Pacificare of California (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 950. This was the first case in California to hold that an HMO could be sued for bad-faith for making its subscribers wait an unreasonable amount of time for medical treatment.
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
- Smith v. Pacificare Behavioral Health (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 139, which held that health insurers and HMOs in California were required to comply with California statutes that regulated the use of arbitration clauses in health-insurance contracts. Mr. Ehrlich later convinced other appellate courts to adopt the reasoning of Smith, in Imbler v. PacifiCare of California (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 567, and Zolezzi v. PacifiCare of California (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 573.
|
 |
|
|
| |
| |
- 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Ahles) (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1247. After widespread abuses by the insurance industry were reported, the Legislature extended the statute of limitations for policyholders to file claims arising out the Northridge earthquake. The insurance industry attacked the statute, and Mr. Ehrlich handled the principal briefing and argument on its constitutionality in the appellate courts. After the statute was held constitutional on appeal, Mr. Ehrlich successfully defended that decision in the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, which both declined to hear the decision.
- Hofler v. Aetna US Healthcare of California, Inc., 296 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002). In this case Mr. Ehrlich convinced the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that bad-faith claims against Medicare HMOs were not preempted by the Medicare Act, and could not be removed to federal court on the basis of federal preemption.
- Lang v. Long-Term Disability Plan of Sponsor Applied Remote Technology, Inc. (9th Cir. 1997) 125 F.3d 794.
This was the first ERISA case in the 9th Circuit to hold that an insurer’s
dual role as plan administrator and insurer created a conflict of interest
that tainted its decision-making.
|
| |
Mr. Ehrlich’s ability to draft legal arguments and to
present them effectively has also resulted in many
favorable, but unpublished, decisions in the trial and
appellate courts. While these decisions affect only the
parties involved in the litigation, they often involve
critical aspects in the case on which the entire litigation
turns. For example, defeating a defendant’s summary-judgment
motion in the trial court is often the key to forcing a
defendant to settle a case. While handling the significant
law-and-motion matters for Shernoff Bidart & Darras, LLP, Mr.
Ehrlich defeated numerous summary-judgment motions in the
firm’s major cases, leading to several seven-figure and
eight-figure settlements.
Mr. Ehrlich is the editor-in-chief of The Advocate, the magazine of the Southern California Consumer Attorneys Association. He also edits that magazine's issues on insurance and on law-and-motion and appeals. He has also authored articles on appellate and law-and-motion practice; on oral argument; and on substantive legal topics, such as insurance, arbitration, patient rights, and federal preemption of state law under ERISA, Medicare, and the Federal Arbitration Act. [List of articles authored by Mr. Ehrlich]
He is also an associate editor of the Consumer Attorneys
of Southern California’s Advocate magazine, and edits that
magazine’s yearly issues on insurance and on appeals.
Mr. Ehrlich is a frequent speaker at
continuing legal education seminars, and has lectured on
appellate advocacy, legal writing, insurance law,
arbitration, and other subjects. He has been a featured
speaker to consumer and business groups, including the
American Association of Trial Lawyers, the Consumer
Attorneys Association of California, the Consumer
Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, The Rutter Group,
the National Employment Lawyers Association, the Legal
Education Institute, Mealy’s, the California Regional TLA
conference, and the Association of Southern California
Defense Counsel.
While much of Mr. Ehrlich’s experience
has been focused on written advocacy, he also has
significant trial experience, having tried several jury
and bench trials in state and federal court, and having
assisted Michael Bidart and Ricardo Echeverria of Shernoff
Bidart & Darras, LLP in winning multi-million-dollar verdicts
for their clients.
Mr. Ehrlich is one of the few lawyers
who has ever tried and won a claim for bad-faith denial of
the existence of a contract – a tort that was created by
the California Supreme Court in 1984 and abolished by that
court 11 years later. Mr. Ehrlich’s case, Todt v. HOH
Water Technologies, Inc., was tried in the U.S. District
Court in Los Angeles, and resulted in a $765,000 judgment
for the plaintiff, including an award of punitive damages.
While the focus of his energy is necessarily in winning cases for his clients, Mr. Ehrlich also seeks to use his skills to serve the community. For this reason, he is proud to serve as vice president on the board of directors of Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles, and as treasurer on the board of directors for IPump.org, Inc. and the San Bernardino Chapter of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.
Neighborhood Legal Services, is one of the two largest legal-aid organizations in Los Angeles County, and provides legal assistance to low-income clients throughout the San Fernando, San Gabriel, and Pomona Valleys.
IPump.org, Inc., is a nonprofit organization that provides insulin pumps and diabetes-treatment supplies to low-income recipients nationwide.
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, is a nonprofit organization devoted to funding research to find a cure for type 1 diabetes.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
