V. James DeSimone, Los Angeles Attorney, Employment Discrimination, Police Misconduct

V. James
DeSimone

V. James DeSimone

Known as "Jim" to his friends, family and colleagues. Jim graduated from Johns Hopkins University in 1981 and earned his law degree from UCLA in 1985. From 1987 to 1990, he was a staff attorney at Westside Legal Services, in Santa Monica, California where he was the lead trial lawyer representing lower income families and individuals who could not afford a lawyer.

Jim was admitted to practice law in California in 1985 and has dedicated his law career to providing vigorous and ethical representation and making a difference for those whose civil and constitutional rights are violated by corporations or governement entities.

Brief Overview of Experience

In 1990, he joined Ben Schonbrun to form Schonbrun & DeSimone. The firm represents plaintiffs in civil rights cases, with an emphasis on employment discrimination and harassment and constitutional rights violations, including government and police misconduct.

The firm quickly established a niche in representing plaintiffs in sexual harassment cases in the entertainment industry. Jim was lead counsel for the plaintiff in the precedent setting case of Mogilefsky v. Silver Pictures, 20 Cal App. 4th 409 (1993) which was the first published California decision to recognize that same sex harassment violated the California Fair Employment & Housing Act.

In 1999, the firm expanded to add Paul Hoffman, the former legal director of the ACLU and formed Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP. The firm continues its emphasis on civil rights law.

In April of 2006, Jim authored an article in the Journal of Consumer Attorneys Associations for Southern California entitled "Discovery in Employment Civil Rights Cases: Finding Where the Bodies are Buried." In 2003, Jim was the Keynote Speaker at Southwestern University School of Law's Pulic Interest Week. In 2007, Jim was one of the featured speakers at the Los Angeles County Bar's Seminar on Successful Trial Techniques in Employment Law Litigation. In 2007, Jim spoke at the California Employment Lawyers Association Annual Employment Law Conference on the topic of Winning Don't Come Easy, Tales from Trial Lawyers in the Trenches.

Jim has conducted legal seminars on Trial Tactics & Techniques, Discovery in Police Misconduct Cases, Nuts and Bolts of Settlement Agreements in Employment Law Cases, and Current Trends in California Employment Litigation.

Memberships and Affiliations

Member, Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles www.caala.org

Member, California Employment Lawyers Association www.celaweb.org

Member, Habitat Partners Council, Habitat for Humanity www.habitat.org

Sponsor, Venice Community Housing Corporation www.vchcorp.org

Sponsor, Fostering Imagination www.fosteringimagination.com

Sponsor, Step Up on Second
www.stepuponsecond.org

Other Cases of Note

Marcos Valdes v. Liberman Broadcasting: Prevailed in a jury trial based on violations of California Labor Code. The Jury found that Liberman Broadcasting misrepresented the length of employment to Marcos Valdes, a well-known Spanish speaking talk show host, to induce him to move from Mexico to Los Angeles. The trial judge affirmed the $156,000 verdict.

Estate of William Wilson v. County of Los Angeles and City of Hawthorne: Obtained an $800,000 settlement on behalf of Carol Wilson whose husband died in Los Angeles County Jail based on the failure of the County and City of Hawthorne to provide adequate medical care. The case involved the violation of Mr. Wilson's civil rights which include the right, under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, to receive adequate medical care while in jail.

Baires et al. vs. FRS Associates: Obtained a $492,000.00 jury verdict on behalf of tenants on the basis of the violation of the warranty of habitability.

Brown v. City of Hawthorne: litigated on behalf of the family of a mentally ill man who was shot and killed by the City of Hawthorne police department. $1,000,000 recovery for the mother based on the wrongful death of her son.

Slaughter v. Eastwood Owners Association: represented the mother of a college basketball player at Chaffey College who was shot and killed by the resident manager of his apartment complex, a former LAPD detective. $925,000.00 recovery for the parents in the wrongful death action.

Griffith v. Davis: represented the daughter of a man who was shot and killed by an IRS special agent. Resulted in the reported case of Griffith v. Davis, 161 F.R.D. 687 (1995) which held that plaintiffs could discover documents which pertained to the IRS investigation of the matter, including the statement of the IRS special agent. $650,000.00 recovery on behalf of the minor child.

Hood v. City of Los Angeles: represented the family of a mentally ill man who was shot and killed by Los Angeles Police Department Officers after he brandished knives. $425,000.00 recovery for the mother and childeren of Mr. Hood.

Calonne vs. S.C.R.T.D., et al.: represented family of passenger who was shot and killed by deranged woman passenger on a City bus and recovered over $1,000,000.00 as compensation for the wrongful death.

Scott v. County of Los Angeles: represented Estate of Donald Scott in federal civil rights lawsuit against law enforcement officials from the County of Los Angeles and federal government which resulted in a $5,000,000.00 recovery the plaintiffs for death of Malibu rancher killed during police raid.

Jim has also represented numerous plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases which have resulted in confidential, six and seven figure settlements.

When he is not advocating on behalf of his clients, Jim enjoys spending time with his wife, Pamela, and daughter, Sierra as well as playing basketball and listening to music.

Other Attorney Bar Admissions:

Supreme Court of the State of California,

U.S. District Court Central District of California;

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California;

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California;

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.