Skip to main content
Professional background
Biography image

John A.Conkle

PartnerPartner in Charge, Los Angelesmoc.eniHnospmohT@elknoC.nhoJ
Los Angeles

O 310.998.9100

John A.Conkle

Partner
Partner in Charge, Los Angelesmoc.eniHnospmohT@elknoC.nhoJ
Los Angeles

O 310.998.9100

Focus Areas

Examples of John’s experience include:

  • Managing the defense of a $40 million claim made against a client for alleged failures in performance of information technology service agreements, such that claimant agreed to settle by paying John’s client over $7 million.
  • Successfully defending multiple clients who served as fiscal intermediaries against allegations by Medicare providers that the clients improperly denied reimbursement claims.
  • Representing the manufacturer of a famous salon hairspray product victimized by a counterfeiting conspiracy involving nearly 1 million illegal products. Obtained monetary damages of nearly $1 million against distributors and retailers that sold the counterfeit products and accumulated evidence that resulted in a criminal conviction of the counterfeiter.
  • Representing a major government contractor in a lawsuit brought under the False Claims Act, including responding to a federal investigation that led to the government’s decision not to intervene and subsequent dismissal of a qui tam complaint.
  • Appointed as an arbitrator by the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce to a tribunal considering misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract.
  • Representing a church whose facility was defectively constructed, leading to mold problems. Obtained a judgment against the contractor, which was then asserted against the contractor’s insurance company, ultimately obtaining a seven-figure settlement.
  • Representing a trustor in a probate court action, successfully resisting a beneficiary’s demands for immediate trust distributions.
  • Obtaining indemnification from a manufacturer on behalf of a supplier client in a California Proposition 65 action involving exposure to the regulated chemical DEHP.
  • Obtaining the first published decision by a U.S. Court of Appeals on the appropriate statute of limitations for an ERISA case.
  • Resolving claims of deficient web hosting performance by a major information technology company made by a national newspaper chain to defeat injunctive remedies and reestablishing our client’s business relationship with the newspaper chain.
  • Negotiating numerous favorable class action settlements of allegations of wage discrimination and under payment.
  • Representing a manufacturer of products linked to residential fire dangers. In addition to resolving the product liability claims against the manufacturer and limiting the scope of the Consumer Product Safety Commission recall and investigation, we assisted the client in obtaining funds from its insurer to help resolve the recall issues, despite the lack of recall coverage in the client’s insurance policy.
  • Resolving numerous potential class action lawsuits involving claims of false advertising for consumer products.
  • Prosecuting to jury trial a fraud action against an insurance agent, a physician and their co-conspirators in the sale of viatical insurance policies.
  • Representing a subcontractor involved in government construction projects seeking payment of contract amounts due from a general contractor, employing insurance proceeds and general contractor payments to make the subcontractor client whole.
  • Defending a major insurance firm in a case involving claimed theft of trade secrets allegedly obtained by recruiting a successful broker.
  • Defending a national manufacturer of high-tech products against claims by a commissioned salesman and convincing the court that the commission payments were discretionary despite provisions in the salesman’s manual providing a commission structure, and further obtained an order directing the salesman to return confidential company information that he misappropriated.
  • Obtaining the first published court decision stating that it is both a crime and unfair competition in California to remove or alter manufacturer codes on personal care products or to possess such products when these codes have been removed or altered.
  • Overcoming an express written agreement by presenting our client’s claim of an inconsistent oral agreement to achieve a $7.5 million settlement.
  • “First Response to Surprise Departure of Top Executive to a Marketplace Rival,” Corporate Counsel Newsletter, American Bar Association publication
  • Emerging Issues Conference, Personal Care Products Council, November 2014
  • “Combining Forces: Coordination of Public & Private Sectors Against Pirates & Counterfeiters,” Global Anti-Counterfeiting Conference, International Quality and Productivity Center (IQPC), September 2014
  • “What to do When a Top Executive Jumps Ship,” American Bar Association Committee on Corporate Counsel, Annual CLE Conference, February 2014
  • “Are Your Products California Bound? Dealing With California’s Unique Regulatory Schemes,” March 2014
  • “What’s Your Game Plan?” Emerging Issues Conference, Personal Care Products Council, November 2012

Professional Associations

  • American Bar Association, Section of Litigation, Corporate Counsel Committee

Community Activities

  • Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Civilian Volunteer

Education

  • University of Cincinnati College of Law, J.D., 1977,

    University of Cincinnati Law Review, executive editor

  • The Ohio State University, B.S., 1971

Bar Admissions

  • California
  • District of Columbia
  • Ohio

Court Admissions

  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
  • U.S. Court of International Trade