{{Infobox law firm | name = Lieff Cabraser | logo = | image_size = | alt = | headquarters = [[San Francisco]] | num_offices = 4 | offices = | num_attorneys = 75 | num_employees = | practice_areas = | key_people = | revenue = | profit_per_equity_partner = | date_founded = {{Start date and age|1972}} | founder = [[Robert L. Lieff]] | company_type = | dissolved = | website = {{URL|https://www.lieffcabraser.com}} }}
'''Lieff Cabraser''' is an American plaintiffs' law firm headquartered in San Francisco. The firm was founded in 1972 by [[Robert L. Lieff]]. Elizabeth Cabraser became a partner in 1981.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Marcum |first1=Kirsten |title=Elizabeth J. Cabraser - California Lawyers - Little Big Woman |url=https://www.superlawyers.com/california-northern/article/little-big-woman/0c2f4281-2761-4357-83ca-eb1fcf2c366d.html |access-date=1 November 2021 |work=Super Lawyers |date=March 17, 2017 |language=en}}</ref>
Elizabeth Cabraser is a prominent gay leader, and the firm has been active on gay rights issues, most prominently [[2008 California Proposition 8]]. The firm has also been involved in antitrust litigation against several [[Silicon Valley]] firms and has supported donor disclosure laws.
==Lawsuits== The firm was a leader against [[2008 California Proposition 8]], a [[California ballot proposition]] and [[constitutional amendment|state constitutional amendment]] intended to ban same-sex marriage.<ref>{{cite news |title=Legal Groups File Brief in Support of Same-Sex Marriage |url=https://www.nbclosangeles.com/local/legal-groups-file-brief-in-support-of-same-sex-marriage/1852810/ |access-date=1 November 2021 |work=NBC Los Angeles |date=January 26, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Brief filed against Prop. 8 ban |url=https://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/2009/01/16/brief-filed-against-prop-8-ban/ |access-date=1 November 2021 |work=Redlands Daily Facts |date=16 January 2009}}</ref>
In 2014, Lieff Cabraser represented four plaintiffs who sued [[Apple Inc.]], [[Google]], [[Intel]], and [[Adobe Inc.]] in an antitrust lawsuit. The case was set to go to trial, but the companies agreed to settle for $324 million. In a highly unusual move, one of the four plaintiffs wrote to the judge in the case, asking her to reject the deal negotiated by his own lawyers. Michael Devine said "The class wants a chance at real justice. We want our day in court." Devine said "he told his lawyers that he found the settlement inadequate as it was being negotiated but they ignored him." Lieff Cabraser and Joseph Saveri Law Firm would have benefited from the proposed settlement by making up to $75 million in fees while class members would have received a maximum of several thousand dollars each.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Streitfeld |first1=David |title=Plaintiff in Silicon Valley Hiring Suit Maligns Deal |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/technology/plaintiff-maligns-deal-in-silicon-valley-suit.html |access-date=29 October 2021 |work=The New York Times |date=12 May 2014}}</ref> Judge [[Lucy Koh]] agreed with Devine and rejected the initial settlement offer. ''The New York Times'' wrote that "Judge Koh appeared annoyed that the lawyers for the class were taking the easy way out by settling rather than going to trial." In 2015, a new settlement of $425 million was proposed, with the lawyers' share of the settlement as much as 25%.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Streitfeld |first1=David |title=Bigger Settlement Said to Be Reached in Silicon Valley Antitrust Case |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/technology/silicon-valley-antitrust-case-settlement-poaching-engineers.html |access-date=29 October 2021 |work=The New York Times |date=14 January 2015}}</ref> The settlement was approved in September 2015.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Lipman |first1=Melissa |title=Judge Koh OKs $415M Google, Apple Anti-Poaching Deal - Law360 |url=https://www.law360.com/articles/677683/judge-koh-oks-415m-google-apple-anti-poaching-deal |access-date=29 October 2021 |work=www.law360.com |date=September 3, 2015 |language=en}}</ref>
In 2017, Lieff Cabraser brought a suit against [[Google]], alleging that the company systematically pays women less than men.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Smith |first1=Paige |title=How Civil Rights Lawyer Kelly Dermody Fights for 'the Underdog' |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/how-civil-rights-lawyer-kelly-dermody-fights-for-the-underdog |access-date=29 October 2021 |work=news.bloomberglaw.com |date=October 4, 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Wakabayashi |first1=Daisuke |title=Google Sued by 3 Female Ex-Employees Who Say It Pays Women Less Than Men |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/technology/google-gender-pay-lawsuit.html |access-date=29 October 2021 |work=The New York Times |date=14 September 2017}}</ref>
In 2018, Lieff Cabraser represented 56 U.S. cities and counties who opposed President Trump's [[Executive Order 13768|efforts to use executive authority]] to withhold federal funding from [[Sanctuary city|sanctuary cities]] that failed to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Kohli |first1=Sonali |title=34 cities and counties urge a federal judge to block Trump's 'sanctuary cities' executive order |url=https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sanctuary-cities-amicus-brief-20170322-story.html |access-date=23 March 2022 |work=Los Angeles Times |date=23 March 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=34 cities and counties urge a federal judge to block Trump's 'sanctuary cities' executive order |url=https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sanctuary-cities-amicus-brief-20170322-story.html |access-date=23 March 2022 |work=Los Angeles Times |date=23 March 2017}}</ref>
In March 2021, Lieff Cabraser filed an ''[[Amicus curiae|amicus]]'' brief spearheaded by Democratic U.S. Senator [[Sheldon Whitehouse]] in ''[[Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta]]''. The ''amicus'' brief supported the state of California in its demand for tax documents identifying donors to nonprofit organizations.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Tay |first1=Daniel |title=US Sens. Back Calif.'s Donor Info Rule Before Supreme Court - Law360 |url=https://www.law360.com/tax-authority/articles/1370535/us-sens-back-calif-s-donor-info-rule-before-supreme-court |access-date=1 November 2021 |work=www.law360.com |date=March 31, 2021 |language=en}}</ref> Opponents of the state's actions included the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] and the [[NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund]], who argued that California's donor disclosure demands "infringe the First Amendment right to associational privacy, in light of the state's demonstrated inability to maintain the confidentiality of that information."<ref>{{cite web |title=Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California |url=https://www.aclu.org/cases/americans-prosperity-foundation-v-xavier-becerra-attorney-general-california |website=American Civil Liberties Union |access-date=1 November 2021 |language=en}}</ref> In July 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that California's requirement burdened the donors' First Amendment rights and was not narrowly tailored, and thus invalid.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Tay |first1=Daniel |title=Calif. Donor Info Rule Unconstitutional, Justices Say - Law360 |url=https://www.law360.com/articles/1387524 |access-date=1 November 2021 |work=www.law360.com |date=July 1, 2021 |language=en}}</ref>
In February 2022, Lieff Cabraser lost an appeal of sanctions it received after a judge found it and other firms behind a $300 million class action settlement with [[State Street Corporation]] had engaged in misconduct while pursuing fees. Lieff Cabraser was found to have been "culpably careless" in misrepresenting typical fees in order to justify $60 million in attorneys' fees in a class action lawsuit.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Raymond |first1=Nate |title=Lieff Cabraser's sanctions upheld in State Street class action fee row |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/lieff-cabrasers-sanctions-upheld-state-street-class-action-fee-row-2022-02-10/ |access-date=17 February 2022 |work=Reuters |date=10 February 2022 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=McAfee |first1=David |title=Lieff Cabraser Stuck With Formal Sanction Over Class Action Fees |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/lieff-cabraser-stuck-with-formal-sanction-over-class-action-fees |access-date=17 February 2022 |work=news.bloomberglaw.com |date=February 9, 2022 |language=en}}</ref>
==Affiliations== In 2022, Lieff Cabraser was a founding member of the [[Legal Alliance for Reproductive Rights]], a coalition of United States law firms offering free legal services to people seeking and providing abortions in the wake of ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'', which overruled ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''.<ref name=law>{{cite news |last1=Lancaster |first1=Alaina |title=20 Law Firms Offer Pro Bono Legal Services to Defend Abortion Rights |url=https://www.law.com/therecorder/2022/06/01/20-law-firms-offer-pro-bono-legal-services-to-defend-abortion-rights/ |access-date=6 July 2022 |publisher=Law.com |date=June 1, 2022}}</ref>
==References== {{Reflist}}
[[Category:Law firms established in 1972]] [[Category:Law firms based in San Francisco]] [[Category:Privately held companies based in San Francisco]]