Bar/Professional Activity:

• Board of Directors, San Mateo County Barristers
• San Francisco Bar Association, Executive Committee, Real Property Section
• Member, San Francisco based real estate organization
• U.S. Supreme Court
• U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit
• Supreme Court of California
• California
• San Francisco Bar Association

Pro bono/Community Service:

• Member, ProVisors, a network of over 2,000 Top Business Professionals
• Member, Belden Club, San Francisco
• Mr. Ponist serves on the Board of Directors for Home and Hope, a nonprofit serving the needs of homeless families, and has volunteered with the Special Olympics, Cal Mentor, and Project Angel Food.

Scholarly Lectures and Writings:

• Author, "Recovering Lost Profits In Real Estate Transactions," Real Estate Quarterly Supplement to The Daily Journal 2011.  Summary:  The article discusses the recent Greenwich decision which has opened the door to the recovery of lost profits, but just slightly. As explained in the article, "Aggrieved investors should seek lost profits, but need to be mindful that courts are still skeptical of lost profits damages and will not allow them where even remotely uncertain or speculative."
• Author, "The Nonrefundable Deposit-Not!"  California Lawyer Magazine 2010.  Summary:  "In many transactions, the seller requires that the buyer pay earnest money in the form of a non-refundable deposit. The deposit is one way the buyer can communicate to the seller that he or she really means business. Indeed, such deposits have for years been commonplace. Recently, however, the court of appeal ruled that a non-refundable deposit is in reality a form of liquidated damages and voided the practice despite the clear contractual documents that called for it. (Kuish v. Smith, 181 Cal.App.4th 1419 (2010).) Whether the Kuish decision is a good thing or a bad thing is not the point; the fact is, real estate lawyers and their clients must deal with a new reality when proceeding to escrow..."
• Author, Should Equitable Indemnity Apply Against Negligent Misrepresentation Claims? The Daily Journal 2010.  Summary:  "The law is clear that a party is entitled to seek equitable indemnity against negligence claims alleged against it. Similarly, the law is clear that a party is not entitled to indemnity against fraud, intentional torts and other torts for which the application of indemnity would violate public policy. But the law is much less clear as to a party’s right to indemnity for negligent misrepresentation, a cause of action which straddles the line between negligence and fraud. Although the issue arises frequently between joint tortfeasors, the appellate courts have yet to address it. In their silence, trial courts have been all over the map..."
• Presenter, "Direct and Cross-Examination For Civil Litigators," National Business Institute, 2009
• Presenter, “When Real Estate Deals Go Bad,” San Mateo County Bar Association, 2010
• Presenter, "Bringing Down the House: Assessing Damages in Real Estate Cases", 2011

Verdicts and Settlements:

• Prosecuted over 25 cases to verdict, ranging from violent crime to environmental protection.  Maintained a perfect trial record in the prosecution of felony cases, 2000-2003
• As part of a trial team, represented real estate investor in action against contractors and design professionals to recover damages for defects in the construction and design of various large-scale apartment complexes.  After extensive litigation and trial, sought and obtained $115 million construction defect verdict, 2004
• Represented commercial real estate brokerage and its agents in an arbitrated matter in which plaintiff buyer sought damages for alleged nondisclosure of material facts and clients sought recovery of their commission.  After arbitration, plaintiffs' claims were rejected and clients were awarded their commission., 2006
• As part of a trial team, represented two California state agency employees in a whistleblower action against a national timber company for allegedly defrauding the government in connection with the purchase and sale of the Headwaters Forest. A favorable settlement was reached after parties had completed two weeks of a scheduled three week jury trial, 2009
• Represented commercial landowner in a quiet title action, involving complex title and ground lease issues.  After a two week trial, the party contesting ownership agreed to relinquish all rights, title and interest in the property to our client landowner and dismissed all of its claims against our client, 2010

Educational Background:

• UC Davis School of Law, J.D. (Moot Court, Mock Trial Team)
• UCLA, B.A., Philosophy (Departmental Scholar, Dean’s Honor List), 1995