That is the right question to ask before you do anything else, and the honest answer requires a candid assessment of three things: the strength of your legal position, the likely cost of getting to resolution, and the realistic value of what you stand to recover or protect. A strong legal position is not enough on its own. If the cost of litigation exceeds the likely recovery, or if the defendant cannot satisfy a judgment, the math does not work regardless of who is right. We give clients a clear-eyed analysis of all three factors at the outset so that the decision to litigate is a strategic one, not an emotional one.

It matters significantly. California state court and federal court operate under different procedural rules, different discovery standards, different motion practice timelines, and different judicial cultures. Some claims can only be brought in one court or the other. Others can be brought in either, and the choice of forum is itself a strategic decision that can affect the pace of litigation, the composition of the jury pool, and the applicable law. We evaluate forum selection at the beginning of every matter and make the recommendation that serves the client's objectives, not the path of least resistance.

Longer than most clients expect. A straightforward dispute in California Superior Court can take eighteen months to two years from filing to trial. Complex multi-party cases routinely take three to five years or longer. Federal court timelines vary by district and docket. The duration is shaped by the complexity of the claims, the number of parties, the volume of discovery, and the court's calendar. We manage our cases with that reality in mind, using pre-litigation strategy and targeted motion practice to create pressure for earlier resolution where the facts support it.

Most disputes do not need to become lawsuits. Pre-litigation strategy means getting ahead of the dispute before it is filed: preserving evidence, assessing the other side's exposure and leverage, sending demand correspondence that frames the legal issues on your terms, and creating conditions for resolution before the costs of formal litigation accumulate. When we handle pre-litigation correctly, we either resolve the matter on favorable terms without filing or we arrive at the courthouse with a case that is already built. Either outcome is better than reactive litigation.

Bring everything you have and let us sort out what matters. That means contracts, correspondence, emails, text messages, photographs, invoices, financial records, prior legal documents, and any communications with the other side. It also means a clear account of the timeline of events from your perspective. The first meeting is about understanding the facts as they exist, not as you wish they were. The more complete the picture you give us, the more precise our assessment will be.

The difference is state of mind, and it matters enormously for both liability and damages. Negligence occurs when someone fails to exercise the degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under the same circumstances, without any intent to cause harm. An intentional tort occurs when someone acts with the purpose of bringing about a specific result, or with substantial certainty that the result will follow from their conduct. Classic examples include assault, battery, fraud, conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and trespass. The practical consequences go well beyond legal theory. Most liability insurance policies cover negligent acts but expressly exclude intentional conduct. If the defendant's conduct is characterized as an intentional tort, the insurance carrier may disclaim coverage, which affects both the defendant's exposure and the plaintiff's ability to collect a judgment. Intentional torts also support an award of punitive damages under California Civil Code section 3294, which requires clear and convincing evidence of malice, oppression, or fraud — a remedy that is not available in a standard negligence case. In practice, the line between negligence and an intentional tort is frequently contested, and where the facts support both theories, pleading both is not only permissible but strategically important.

California organizes its civil courts into three tiers based on the amount in controversy, and the choice of forum carries consequences that go well beyond the dollar threshold. Small claims court handles disputes up to $12,500 for individuals and $6,250 for businesses. No attorneys appear on behalf of the parties at the hearing, the rules of evidence are relaxed, and the process moves quickly. The tradeoff is that the remedies are limited and complex legal arguments do not receive the treatment they would in a higher court. Limited civil court handles disputes between $12,500 and $35,000. Attorneys may appear, the full rules of civil procedure apply, and the range of pretrial motions and discovery tools is available, though with some restrictions on discovery scope compared to unlimited civil. Unlimited civil court handles disputes exceeding $35,000 and is the proper forum for complex litigation involving multiple parties, significant damages, equitable relief, or legal theories that require extensive discovery and motion practice. Jury trials are available as of right in most unlimited civil cases. One practical point clients frequently overlook: a case filed in limited civil court cannot be upgraded to unlimited civil simply because the damages turn out to be larger than anticipated. We evaluate the proper forum at the outset of every matter and make that decision deliberately.