Legal expert Herbert Dodell has extensive experience as a transactional and trial lawyer, Judge Pro Tem, mediator and arbitrator. He has been hearing and resolving restraining order cases for a number of years.
In fact, he’s been on all three sides—as attorney for the Petitioner, as legal counsel for the Respondent, and as a Superior Court judge (pro tem)* presiding over the case—so he understands all aspects:
- The vital need for the law and how to utilize it when necessary
- The benefits of filing a civil action to effect a more satisfactory result and avoid abusing the § 527.6 statute
- How to defend oneself when someone does file a capricious, false, or malicious petition against you
He’s read many hundreds of applications. He’s presided over several hundred cases, including prove ups where only the petitioner is present. Dodell has granted five to 10 percent of those petitions.
During the past 50 years of his highly diverse law practice – exclusive of cases he prosecuted as a Deputy District Attorney of Los Angeles County – he’s tried 99 jury trials, both civil and criminal, in both state and federal courts, a number of which resulted in multi-million dollar verdicts, and a substantial number of non-jury trials, with similar results.
He successfully argued before the California Supreme Court in the case of Essex Insurance vs. Five Star Dye House, Inc., (click to download) which created landmark authority in the area of insurance law, including an insurance company’s obligation to provide a defense where its insured has been sued. He is a published author in insurance law and has lectured frequently on the subject.
Previously, he’s served as Director of Business Affairs for Warner Brothers where he supervised the legal department, negotiated agreements with major entertainment individuals/entities, and administered the studio facility.
*Judge Dodell continues to hear restraining order cases. He will not appear in any court on any restraining order case that is scheduled in any courthouse where he presides over these types of cases. This is to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest.