For more than 35 years, corporations and their officers and directors have retained Dan to represent them in complex matters, ranging from class actions to regulatory investigations to defense of criminal proceedings to serving as their appellate counsel in significant civil and criminal matters. He often simultaneously defends clients targeted by state and federal law enforcement agencies in parallel civil litigation and in regulatory proceedings before such agencies as the DOJ, SEC, state insurance departments, attorneys general, and other agencies.

Dan’s civil practice covers issues relating to securities, unfair competition, fiduciary and shareholder rights and obligations, and general business litigation. Recent cases have included defense of matters alleging inaccurate financial reporting, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by public company officers and directors, and deceptive sales practices in the insurance, telecommunications, and food industries.

His criminal matters have included winning dismissals of criminal charges in high-profile matters litigated in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Boston; defending public company officers in investigations of alleged securities fraud; and representing a prominent brokerage firm in a criminal investigation arising from the Orange County, California bankruptcy and in subsequent California Supreme Court proceedings.

Clients often retain Dan as appellate counsel. In recent years he has argued matters presenting a diverse range of issues such as:

  • Whether a court erred in dismissing a juror during jury deliberations
  • Standing to prosecute a representative ERISA action for breach of fiduciary duty
  • The retroactivity of California Proposition 64, which sharply limited standing to allege unfair competition claims
  • Whether the internal affairs doctrine required a California court to apply the law of the British Virgin Islands in a shareholder derivative action
  • The proper scope of a criminal restitution order

Dan regularly handles pro bono matters. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and California Lawyer have recognized him for his ongoing commitment to pro bono representation.

Dan serves on the State Litigation Advisory Committee of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He is a member of the White Collar Crime Committee of the American Bar Association, as well as a member of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the Federal Bar Association, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Show More


  • (S.D.N.Y.) Lead defense counsel for founder and former CEO of public company in DOJ and SEC proceedings alleging stock option backdating and improper revenue recognition. Two jury trials resulted in acquittal on six counts and hung jury on remaining count.

  • (C.D. Cal.) Defense of former officers and directors in pending and threatened litigation by the FDIC, as receiver for various financial institutions that failed during the credit crisis, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, gross negligence and other misconduct.

  • (C.D. Cal.) Representation of companies investigated for alleged submission of false claims for payment to government agencies.

  • Representation of manufacturer in consumer class actions, shareholder derivative and securities class actions, and regulatory inquiries concerning marketing and labeling of its products.

  • Representation of numerous companies sued in putative class actions for alleged violation of the TCPA.

  • (D.N.J.) Lead defense counsel in coordinated multi-district litigation of more than 30 putative class actions that challenged charges for data usage by wireless carrier.

  • (C.D. Cal.) On behalf of former officers and directors of Downey Financial Corp. obtained dismissal with prejudice of consolidated securities' class action complaint filed in the Central District of California, alleging misleading disclosures regarding the Company's portfolio of Option ARMs, underwriting practices, and loan loss reserves.

  • (C.D. Cal.) Represented LJ International, Inc., a Hong Kong-based jewelry manufacturer, and certain of its officers in a securities class action filed in the Central District of California and two related derivative actions filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles. One of the derivative actions was dismissed on defendants' motion, and the decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal. Following the Appellate Court’s decision, the other derivative action was dismissed a few months later. The securities class action was settled on favorable terms for our client.

  • (D. Mass.) Obtained dismissal of charge that client violated Economic Espionage Act in connection with alleged theft of trade secrets from Harvard Medical School.

  • (C.D. Cal.) Defended a medical device manufacturer in proceedings commenced by the DOJ, SEC, and Dept. of Labor and in derivative and securities litigation commenced following public disclosure of inaccurate financial reporting. Negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ and a consent decree with the SEC, and settled private litigation on favorable terms.

  • 249 F.3d 1010 (D.C. Cir.); 107 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C.) Led defense and obtained rare dismissal of criminal charges, based on statute of limitations, on behalf of the China program director of McDonnell Douglas, who was charged with criminal conspiracy to violate export laws in connection with the shipment of aircraft machining tools to China.

  • (Orange County Super. Ct.) Represented Merrill Lynch in criminal investigation following Orange County bankruptcy. No charges were filed and the matter was resolved with a civil settlement. Also defended applications for unsealing of grand jury materials following the conclusion of the investigation. (1999)

Show More



Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.