Attorney Search
Advocacy at a Higher Level

Horvitz & Levy is a solutions-based firm focused on appellate success. We are distinguished by our commitment to responsive service and on-going innovation in the areas of civil appellate litigation, amicus curiae support, and trial strategy consultation.

Our firm history, honors and awards, and locations speak to our collaborative approach and commitment to serving clients as well as the outstanding legal resources we bring to bear.

LEARN MORE ABOUT HORVITZ & LEVY
Lisa  Perrochet

Lisa Perrochet

Partner - Los Angeles Office

How Lisa Helps Clients

With a strong reputation for creativity and success in high stakes appellate litigation, clients seek Lisa Perrochet’s considerable defense expertise regarding toxic tort and product liability claims; punitive damages claims; consumer claims against banks and other institutions; insurance coverage and bad faith litigation; as well as professional liability (medical and legal malpractice) and ethics matters, including attorney disqualification.


Lisa has represented clients in hundreds of appeals and writ proceedings, and has argued before the California Supreme Court and intermediate appellate courts throughout the state. She has also handled matters in other jurisdictions, including Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Hawaii.

Lisa is a partner at the firm and has more than 30 years specializing in civil appeals. Lisa has been a California State Bar Certified Appellate Specialist since the first year the State Bar offered certification in 1996. She is also on the board of the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel, and for many years served as the editor of that organization's Verdict magazine.

Lisa's representative matters in the intermediate appellate courts are too numerous to list. In the California Supreme Court alone, Lisa has represented parties and amicus curiae entities in dozens of cases, some of which are listed below.

Representative Matters

Her matters in the California Supreme Court include:

Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp. (2018)
Approving defendants’ use of “custom and practice” evidence in cases alleging product defect

McGill v. Citibank (2017)
Addressing arbitrability of claims seeking public injunctive relief

Webb v. Special Electric Co. 
(2016)
Products liability decision in which the California Supreme Court established the viability of the sophisticated intermediary defense to California products liability actions

Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC (2014)
California Supreme Court addressed issues concerning arbitration and federal preemption in putative class action against employer for wage and hour violations

Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010)
Presented argument in the California Supreme Court addressing res judicata in toxic tort case

Sterling v. Taylor (2007)
California Supreme Court reversed lower court in commercial contract case involving statute of frauds and parole evidence

Simon v. San Paolo U.S. Holding Co. (2005)
California Supreme Court held that punitive damages 340 times greater than a $5,000 compensatory damages award was constitutionally excessive

American Financial Services Assn. v. City of Oakland (2005)
California Supreme Court reversed lower court in case addressing federal preemption of state lending laws

Gavaldon v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004)
Obtained holding of industry-wide importance from the California Supreme Court that California’s “lemon law” applies only during the original warranty and not to separately purchased service contracts for post-warranty repairs

Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003)
California Supreme Court held that nonrestitutionary disgorgement of profits was not an available remedy in an individual action under the unfair competition law

Vu v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2001)
In answering a certified question from the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court held that an insurer’s denial of a claim on the ground that the policy does not cover the loss in question is not a basis for estopping the insurer from asserting the one-year period of limitation as a defense

Kransco v. Am. Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000)
California Supreme Court addressed whether a liability insurer can assert comparative bad faith of insured as affirmative defense in bad faith action by insured

Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans of California (1999)
California Supreme Court held that a claim for damages under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) is arbitrable, but a claim for injunctive relief under the CLRA is not arbitrable and should be severed

People ex rel. Dept of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Sys., Inc. (1999) California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that the rule of vicarious disqualification applies to “of counsel” attorneys

Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (1995)
California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff seeking to recover for interference with economic relations must prove that defendant not only knowingly interfered with plaintiff’s expectancy, but engaged in wrongful conduct by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself

Freeman & Mills, Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co. (1995)
California Supreme Court overruled the controlling precedent in the area of tortious denial of contract, holding that a company’s bad faith denial of contract does not create a remedy in tort

Education

  • Loyola Law School of Los Angeles
    J.D., cum laude, 1987
  • University of California, Los Angeles
    B.A., Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude, 1984

Bar Admissions

  • California
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Professional Associations

Awards

Publications