Honors and Awards:

• Legal Counsel of the Year for pro bono work., James Madison Freedom of Information Award, Society of Professional Journalists, 2000
• A presentation I assembled with a group of ten colleagues on forensic use of DNA evidence in the courtroom was selected as the Best Program for 2009-10., Best Presentation of the Year, E.J. McFetridge American Inn of Court , 2010

Bar/Professional Activity:

• State Bar of California, Litigation Section, member of executive committee., 2008
• McFetridge Inn of Court, San Francisco, California., 2008
• Bar Association of San Francisco, member, Pro Bono Committee, 2008

Pro bono/Community Service:

• David Newdorf was asked to write an amicus brief on behalf of the League of California Cities in the California Supreme Court concerning the proper measure of medical damages in personal injury cases.  The case is Howell v. Hamilton Meat Co.  Mr. Newdorf represented the City and County of San Francisco in the Court of Appeal in one of the seminal cases on this subject, and has written amici briefs on the subject forthe League of California Cities in earlier cases., 2010
• David Newdorf is representing a state prisoner in a First Amendment claim regarding retaliation for articles written about prison life and published on the Internet., 2010

Scholarly Lectures and Writings:

• The S & L debacle will be an enduring blemish on the integrity of the legal and accounting professions. In many cases the S & L owners defrauded investors, creditors and the government through accounting sleight of hand that transformed worthless real estate into paper profits. Often the best source of recovery–the only “deep pocket”–is the malpractice insurance policies of outside professionals.  Suits brought by the FDIC and other S & L bailout agencies against attorneys and accountants have produced more than a dozen multi-million dollar settlements, which lightens the estimated $200 billion-plus taxpayer burden of the S & L crisis.  The litigation is also politically popular because of the perception–true in some cases–that lawyers and accountants either turned a blind eye toward their clients’ misdeeds, or worse, actively aided  and abetted fraud. The lawyers and accountants contend, however, that they are not legally responsible because insider fraud caused the losses. In addition to the usual tort defenses,  attorneys and accountants named in the FDIC suits have asserted the insider fraud defense. The defense is based on the intentional and fraudulent conduct of the owners or top managers of a thrift, which, under theories of estoppel, in pari delicto, contributory or comparative negligence,  or proximate cause, bars the S & L or the FDIC from recovering from outside attorneys and accountants who did not participate in the fraud., Author, Inside Fraud, Outside Negligence & The Savings & Loan Crisis: When Does Management Wrongdoing Excuse Professional Neglience?, 1993
• One of the prime reasons to spend the time and money to depose an adverse witness is to gather impeachment material.  Other than hiring a private investigator to delve into the witness’s past, the deposition is the most effective tool in the lawyer’s arsenal for uncovering dirt and chipping away at credibility.  That includes attacking an eye-witness account, challenging an unfavorable opinion, exposing bias, and undermining believability.Yet most lawyers don’t ask all of the basic, open-ended questions that could help achieve their impeachment goals.  In every deposition, there are questions tailored to the facts of the case, whether it is a business dispute or personal injury claim.  But many (if not all) of these “killer” questions should be asked of adverse witnesses in every type of case.  Many times you will strike out.  That’s okay, because when you do connect with one of these questions, the result is likely to be a solid base hit – and occasionally a grand slam.  The answers to these basic questions can be so damaging to the opponent’s case that the litigation will end on terms favorable to your client.  And isn’t that the goal?, Author, The Top 10 Killer Deposition Questions, 2008
• Defending your client’s deposition can be a nerve-wracking experience.  At the end of the day, a weak performance or just one poor answer can sink a case.  But even with stakes this high, most lawyers do not spend enough time preparing the client to testify. This panel will provide practical techniques and advice for common deposition preparation challenges in a live webinar format.  , Moderator, How to Prepare Your Client For Deposition, State Bar of California Litigation Section, 2010
• Civility at the deposition table is eroding. Just search for "nasty deposition" on YouTube to see real-life examples of verbal brawling — verging on fisticuffs — during depositions. Attorney misbehavior that I've encountered (and who hasn't?) includes excessive speaking objections, profanity, rudeness, inappropriate colloquy, argument, threats and interruptions that obstruct the examination of the witness. These comments are geared primarily toward misconduct in the defense of the deposition. While deposition takers may cross the line occasionally, it's the defender who has the most to gain from disrupting the deposition. In a perfect world, lawyers who engaged in egregious conduct at deposition would incur the court's swift and glorious wrath. That can happen, but rarely. See Mullaney v. Aude , 730 A.2d 759 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.1999) (holding that protective order could be issued and attorney's fees awarded based on sexist comments made by one attorney to another during deposition); In re Williams , 414 N.W.2d 394 (Minn. 1987) (upholding public reprimand of attorney who, among other things, made an anti-Semitic comment to opposing counsel during a pretrial deposition). In reality, many judges are reluctant to impose sanctions because they fear it encourages more discovery disputes, not fewer. Judges also believe, rightly or wrongly, that both sides share responsibility for a deposition gone wrong. Where does that leave the lawyer facing difficult opposing counsel? You must fend for yourself. You need to learn effective self-defense tactics and strategies.  , Author, Difficult Opposition and the Art of Verbal Jujitsu, The Recorder, 2010

Verdicts and Settlements:

• Defense summary judgment granted in federal civil rights lawsuit over altercation involving off-duty police officers in the case dubbed "Fajitagate" by the press.  Ninth Circuit affirmed defense judgment in 2008. (Snyder and Santoro v. City and County of San Francisco, U.S. District Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.), 2006
• Defense jury verdict in excessive force civil rights lawsuit against S.F. Police Officers.  (Washburn v. Fagan, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California), 2006
• Defense jury verdict defending SFPD officers in excessive force case (Miller v. City and County of San Francisco, S.F. Superior Court), 2008
• In an en banc ruling, the Ninth Circuit reversed 20 years of case law to hold that San Francisco's policy of strip searching inmates after allowing a reasonable period to post bail and before admitting them to the general jail population was reasonable based on evidence of drug and weapons smuggling at the jail.  This ruling came in a federal civil rights class action lawsuit that has been pending since 2003.  From the start, David Newdorf represented the jail and the Sheriff in the trial court, at the Ninth Circuit panel, and wrote the briefs on which the en banc panel ruled.  Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc)., 2010

Other Outstanding Achievements:

• Honored in a proclamation by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors as "one of San Francisco's finest lawyers" on the occasion of Mr. Newdorf's departure from the S.F. City Attorney's Office to open a private practice.  (Proclamation dated July 11, 2008.), 2008

Video:

• Video highlights from The Recorder Roundtable: How to Take and Defend a Winning Deposition. Participants: David Newdorf, Thomas Brandi, Richard Seabolt and Doris Cheng. Moderator: Recorder Editor-in-Chief Scott Graham., How to Take and Defend a Winning Deposition, 2011

Newsletters:

• My name is David Newdorf and welcome to the California Business Litigation Reporter. I have been a civil trial lawyer in San Francisco for 16 years. I currently practice in the area of commercial disputes. I have been lead counsel in more than one hundred litigation matters. I have taken numerous cases to trial in state and federal court, handled dozens of aribrtrations and mediations, and briefed and argued major appeals in the California Court of Appeal and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. My published decisions include Nishihama v. City and County of San Francisco (2001) 93 Cal. App. 4th 298, a frequently cited precedent capping medical costs when the plaintiff is covered by medical insurance. As a former trial team leader in the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, I handled high profile cases and supervised lawyers handling hundreds of active litigation matters. The State Bar Board of Governors appointed me to the Litigation Section Executive Committee for a three year term commencing September 2008., California Business Litigation Reporter
• Welcome to the Section 1983 Civil Rights Law Reporter blog. My name is David Newdorf. I am a former San Francisco Deputy City Attorney. While working for San Francisco, I defended the City, the Police Department, the Sheriff's Department and City employees in numerous civil rights actions in state and federal court, at the trial and appellate level. I will be posting news and analysis of interest to law enforcement agencies, public entities, and civil rights litigators., Section 1983 Civil Rights Law Reporter

Educational Background:

• University of California, Berkeley, B.A., English, 1982
• Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, M.S., 1983