Bob Mitchell focuses his practice on the litigation and trial of complex tort and business cases from inception through appeal. At home in a court room, he has tried numerous cases to the court and to juries. He is particularly experienced in presenting complex scientific, medical, engineering and financial testimony. He has an excellent track record of victories for his clients.

In the mass tort arena, Mr. Mitchell has defended products liability cases involving latex medical gloves, medical devices, vaccines, breast implants, aircraft parts, aluminum products, automobiles and chemical exposures. He has been national counsel in several matters. In the latex glove litigation he participated in negotiations leading to the settlement of thousands of claims following a series of defense jury trial victories.

Mr. Mitchell also led a regulatory effort in the European Union and several of its member countries to counter a proposal to ban certain types of medical gloves. He successfully argued that such a ban would be costly and contrary to good medical practices. The products were never banned and their sales continued uninterrupted.

His experience in business litigation includes business to business disputes, antitrust, securities and unfair business practices cases. For example, he participated in briefing before the United States Supreme Court of the issue of whether reinsurance is “the business of insurance” subject to antitrust immunity. The Supreme Court sided with the defendants in a landmark decision for the reinsurance industry.

A representative sample of cases is described below:

1. On a pro bono basis, Mr. Mitchell served for three years as General Counsel to the Los Angeles – Orange County Chapter of the American Red Cross. As such, he handled all legal issues of the country’s largest Chapter, and sat on its Board of Directors and on its Audit Committee. He served as Parliamentarian for the annual meeting of the national organization. It was a challenging time as blood-borne diseases, including those derived from blood donations, came to the forefront of healthcare attention while demand for blood products coincidentally sharply increased.
2. A renowned university hospital in the southeast allegedly performed several thousand surgeries over a three month period using surgical instruments washed in used elevator hydraulic fluid rather than surgical detergent. Mr. Mitchell represented the country’s largest supplier of healthcare products in the ensuing litigation brought by hundreds of former patients.
3. Mr. Mitchell was the lead attorney presenting and cross-examining materials scientists, manufacturing experts, epidemiologists, allergists, immunologists and pulmonologists in multiple trials nationwide where plaintiffs alleged that latex medical gloves were causing life threatening allergies. More than a thousand product liability cases were filed in state and federal courts. In addition to preparing and trying cases, Mr. Mitchell led the defendants’ experts group. Defense trial results were overwhelmingly successful, resulting in settlements of the remaining cases.
   He also led the response to related regulatory issues in Malaysia, Thailand, the United States and the European Union. When European Union scientists convened a meeting of an ad hoc committee in an effort to ban the sale of powdered latex medical gloves in the EU, on short notice he traveled to Brussels, gained admission to the meeting and succeeded in having the issue tabled. He then organized a systematic two year campaign staffed by European scientists and regulatory experts to inform European regulators in the EU and member countries on the public health and cost issues raised by the proposed ban. As a result, no ban was imposed.
4. Mr. Mitchell represented a national trade association of reinsurers in actions brought by several states’ attorneys general asserting antitrust conspiracies in the drafting of comprehensive general liability insurance forms. He was a key participant in drafting briefs to the United States Supreme Court arguing that reinsurance is a part of the “business of insurance” and thus immune from federal antitrust laws. The Court so held in a landmark decision for reinsurers.
5. A financial services company was sued by a developer in Palm Desert, California when the company declined to provide millions of dollars of take out funding of a construction loan for a gated golf community subdivision. After several years of litigation, Mr. Mitchell obtaining summary judgment in favor of the lender.
6. The City of San Jose, California, following a $60 million dollar loss incurred in trading in the bond market, sued several investment banking firms. Mr. Mitchell represented the largest and most involved defendant. That firm settled for a small sum as the matter proceeded to a significant judgment against other defendants.
7. Mr. Mitchell defended an agricultural service corporation in an antitrust case where plaintiff growers alleged that defendant growers conspired to set maturity standards for certain varieties of fruit in a manner favoring defendants’ varieties.
8. In a month long trial Mr. Mitchell defeated unfair competition claims against a large financial services company in a dispute with a former general agent. $300 million of tax deferred annuity deposits were at issue.
9. Mr. Mitchell has assisted various securities firms recover significant customer funds misappropriated by account executives. These cases were conducted under intense time pressure and typically involved provisional remedies such as temporary restraining orders or writs of attachment based upon breach of the contracts between the firm and account executives.
10. Mr. Mitchell has represented manufacturing clients in several disputes arising from the alleged wrongful termination of distributorship agreements.
11. Mr. Mitchell presently represents a building products manufacturer in class action lawsuits alleging defective products. This ongoing litigation is taking place in multiple venues in the southeast.