Press Mentions
“The Search for Intelligent Life in the Blogosphere,” California Lawyer (May 2008) (“For instance, if Williams needs an update on developments in California's Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200-17209), he goes straight to The UCL Practitioner (www.uclpractitioner.com). ‘I look there if I need to know the latest in the law,’ Williams says of the blog written by Kimberly A. Kralowec, a partner at Schubert & Reed in San Francisco. ‘I can count on Kimberly for that.’”)
“Debate Heats Up Over Unpublished Opinions,” California Lawyer (May 2008) (“Kimberly Kralowec, an appeals attorney at San Francisco's Schubert & Reed, agrees that a change would mean extra work for lawyers. But she also finds some truth to the claim that the state Supreme Court is much less likely to grant review of unpublished decisions. ‘I can hear the frustration that is coming through in [the Hild] complaint,’ says Kralowec, who blogs at The Appellate Practitioner. ‘Whether it rises to a constitutional violation is a different story.’”)
“$15.6M Awarded In San Francisco Newspaper Clash,” Competition Law 360, March 6, 2008 (“Kimberly A. Kralowec, a partner at Schubert & Reed LLP in San Francisco, said the jury's finding that the Weekly violated California's Unfair Practices Act could be a predicate for a finding by the judge that the defendant also violated the ‘unlawful’ prong of the state's Unfair Competition Law. ‘Indeed, I would expect that such a finding would be virtually compelled by the jury's verdict,’ Kralowec said.”)
“S.F. Firm Gets First Lateral,” The Recorder, January 11, 2008 (“Kralowec was ready to open her own firm, but when a friend connected her with Schubert & Reed, she saw a fit. On Jan. 28 she’ll join the small San Francisco plaintiff shop, established in 1996, as its first-ever lateral partner.”)
“Leveling the Playing Field,” The Daily Journal, May 4, 2007 (“Based on the rapid appearance of conflicting analyses, the Supreme Court decision in Pioneer Electronics likely will have significant consequences in class actions. See, e.g., … Kimberly Kralowec, ‘Thoughts on the Class-Action Aspects of Pioneer Electronics,’ UCL Practitioner, Jan. 25, 2007.”)
“Class-Action Dissonance,” The Daily Journal, March 5, 2007 (“Kimberly A. Kralowec, in her excellent Web log, The UCL Practitioner (www.uclpractitioner.com), heralded Pioneer Electronics as a pro-class-action decision.”)
“Language on Form Spares Lawyer $500,000,” The Daily Journal, February 16, 2007 (“Rava was represented in the sanctions matter by … Section 17200 expert Kimberly A. Kralowec of San Francisco.”)
“Case of the tour-bus kickbacks: bellhops win big settlement,” San Francisco Bay Guardian, January 3, 2007 (“‘How the case was litigated after we filed suit was certainly interesting,’ Kimberly Kralowec, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, told us.”)
“Tour bus companies settle price-fixing suit,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 30, 2006 (“The settlement, to be reviewed today by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer, would benefit about 1,000 people, plaintiffs’ lawyer Kimberly Kralowec said.”)
“Ruling Renders Prop. 64 Retroactive,” The Recorder, July 25, 2006 (“Kimberly Kralowec, of counsel in The Furth Firm in San Francisco and a recognized expert on Prop 64, called [Mervyn's] a ‘measured decision’ that ‘reached a middle ground.’”)
“Ruling Threatens Consumer Lawsuits,” Los Angeles Times, July 25, 2006 (“Kimberly Kralowec, a San Francisco attorney who handles unfair-competition cases and maintains the blog http://www.uclpractitioner.com, said she was ‘relieved that the broad liability rules seem to be preserved [by the Mervyn’s decision].’ ”)
“Class Actions Hamstrung in Prop 64 Cases,” The Recorder, July 12, 2006 (“Kimberly Kralowec, an of counsel at The Furth Firm in San Francisco who maintains a blog on Prop 64, called the issues addressed in Tuesday’s [Pfizer] ruling the ‘three big ones,’ and believes there’s a chance the opinion could even influence the high court’s thinking on retroactivity.”)
“UCL Suits to Target Illegal Hiring,” The Recorder, July 7, 2006 (“UCL expert Kimberly Kralowec … suggested in an email that … ‘a narrowly-tailored action … might be the best approach.’ ”)
“State's High Court to Untangle Voter-Modified Unfair Competition Law,” San Diego Daily Transcript, Oct. 21, 2005 (“‘The general rule is new legislation applies prospectively only unless there is a clear indication otherwise,’ said Kimberly Kralowec of San Francisco’s Furth Firm[, who] has a blog devoted to the ongoing debate.”)
“Supreme Court Will Decide Prop. 64 Retroactivity,” The Daily Journal, April 28, 2005 (“It was a foregone conclusion that the Supreme Court would resolve the issue, said Kimberly A. Kralowec, a plaintiffs’ lawyer with the Furth Firm who writes a Web log about Proposition 64 and retroactivity. …. ‘It was obvious we needed guidance from the Supreme Court,’ she said. Kralowec added that it is important to resolve the issue as early as possible. ‘If they had waited, these cases would be in limbo longer, and parties would be litigating without knowing if they are litigating on behalf of the general public or not,’ she said.”)
“State High Court to Review Cases in Prop. 64 Flap,” The Recorder, April 28, 2005 (“Kimberly Kralowec, a plaintiff lawyer with the Furth Firm in San Francisco who maintains the 17200blog.com Web site – a de facto clearing house for information on Prop 64 – pointed out Wednesday that the Supreme Court could first decide the question in a separate case that’s been lingering there since 2003.”)
“Clarification" re "Defense Firms Hail Prop. 64,” National Law Journal, February 7, 2005 (“A story on Page 27 of the Dec. 20-27 edition of The National Law Journal, entitled ‘Defense firms hail Prop. 64,’ should have credited a Web log, The UCL Practitioner, http://17200blog.blogspot.com, edited by Kimberly A. Kralowec, with providing some background information for the article, including the approximate number of California firms that sent ‘client alert’ messages.”)
“1st District Rejects Retroactive Use of Initiative on Tort Reform,” The Daily Journal, February 3, 2005 (“The appeals court most likely to address the issue in the immediate future is the 4th District Court of Appeal, which heard oral argument on Proposition 64 in a pair of cases in January, said Kimberly Kralowec, a plaintiffs’ lawyer who writes a Web log about Proposition 64 and retroactivity issues. ... . Plaintiffs’ lawyers cited an advantage to having the first opinion on the subject go their way. ‘On a short-term basis, there’s a huge benefit for plaintiffs,’ Kralowec said. ‘It provides ammunition and clout for plaintiffs in other pending appeals.’”)
“First District Rules Prop 64 Not Retroactive,” The Recorder, February 2, 2005 ("'This [decision] is a victory all around for the plaintiff bar. It's very strongly worded,' said Kimberly Kralowec, a plaintiff lawyer with the Furth Firm whose 17200 Web log has become a popular source of information on retroactivity arguments.")
“Prop 64, In Reverse,” The Recorder, January 24, 2005 ("[W]hen Proposition 64 — which limits the reach of Business & Professional Code § 17200 — passed on Election Day, Kralowec's blog, www.17200blog.com, leaped into the spotlight. The blog and Kralowec, of counsel at The Furth Firm, have quickly become a leading resource in answering Prop 64's $64,000 question: whether the statute is retroactive.")
“Blogging the Law,” Sacramento Bee, January 3, 2005 ("[W]ho knew that a statute of California law ... would be ripe for the blogosphere? Kimberly Kralowec, a San Francisco-based class-action attorney, set up a blog in 2003 that focuses on the state's Unfair Competition Law.... Since [Proposition 64's] passage, the blog (www.17200blog.com) has served as a clearinghouse for California lawyers tracking how Proposition 64 affects cases that predated the initiative.")
“Judge Denies Retroactivity of Proposition 64,” The Daily Journal, January 3, 2005 (“Kramer’s ruling is among more than a dozen superior court decisions that have been issued on the retroactivity issue so far from around the state, according to an online compendium of the cases at www.17200blog.com.”)
“Courts Will Play Role in Effort to Stem Abuse of 17200 Law,” Los Angeles Business Journal, November 29, 2004 ("Kralowec and others believe that the law was used properly, except by a handful of attorneys who abused it. But those abusive cases became notorious ....")
Timothy Sandefur, “The Information Age, Again,” 11 Nexus J. Op. 5, 8-9 (2006)
Bonny E. Sweeney, “Proposition 64 Does Not Apply to Pending Cases,” 14 Competition 11 (2005)
