The firm's practice, representing both plaintiffs and defendants, is focused on high-stakes trials and appeals, including "bet the company" cases. Howarth & Smith is selective in its client representation, undertaking matters involving intellectual challenges, serious social concerns and the opportunity to address groundbreaking legal issues.

The firm has trial experience in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

The firm typically refers routine litigation to other capable attorneys and firms, many of which it has worked with as co-counsel over the years. Howarth & Smith encourages close relationships with attorneys and law firms throughout the country, and many of its clients, which include individuals, corporations, sovereign nations, and nonprofit organizations, are referred by other lawyers. The firm also serves as designated trial counsel in significant cases, where pretrial preparation is handled by other firms in co-counsel capacity.

Many of the most significant matters Howarth & Smith has successfully handled for its clients are subject to confidentiality agreements because of the sensitive nature of the conflict or the very substantial amounts involved. A brief description of some prominent cases which have been matters of public record is illustrative of Howarth & Smith's achievements:Howarth & Smith's unique accomplishments stem from its partners' recognized ability to combine strategic thinking, high-quality legal analysis and persuasive courtroom presence. What further distinguishes these lawyers is their ability to distill complex legal issues, technicalities and jargon into understandable and compelling arguments, enabling juries to grasp relevant issues and understand the client's position. Howarth & Smith's flair for crisp, concise communication – coupled with its analytical skills and mastery of trial strategy - are a potent combination that makes the firm a powerful force in the nation's courtrooms.

Howarth & Smith has demonstrated that creative attorneys with the right approach and the right set of skills can provide what is necessary to succeed in today's legal arena: individualized trial and appellate advocacy so difficult to find in large firms with a generic approach.

Howarth & Smith represented the plaintiff in a 1996 fraud and breach of contract action against General Dynamics, winning $107.4 million – the largest jury verdict in California that year. That year the firm also was responsible for one of the most notable defense verdicts in the nation in a product liability action defending Suzuki Motor Corp. Opposing the same counsel who had obtained a $90 million verdict against Suzuki in a prior suit, Howarth & Smith's trial strategy led to a defense verdict after the jury deliberated for three hours.

In 2001, Howarth & Smith tried a two month jury trial in the Federal District Court for Colorado, in an "Erin Brockovich" type toxic pollution case, obtaining a $43 million judgment for its clients against the Cotter uranium mill.

The firm represented the late Doris Duke and played a leading role in the battle over the billion-dollar estate of the tobacco heiress, resulting in the removal of the opposing trustees, preliminary executor and a major banking institution and the appointment of the firm's client as a trustee of the Estate.

Howarth & Smith represented the wife and son of the original "Marlboro Man" in their suit against Philip Morris and was a part of the landmark class action cases against the tobacco industry, including being a founding member of the Castano Class Action legal team. The firm was also lead trial counsel for the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands in its action against the tobacco industry to recover health-care costs incurred because of tobacco use on the islands.

In a substantial legal malpractice action, the firm represented a Newport Beach couple, who sued their former law firm on a claim that it mishandled the sale of the couple’s $150 million company, resulting in a loss of virtually the entire value of the company the couple had built.

In a two month jury trial in Los Angeles Superior Court in summer 2004, the firm represented a venture capitalist for breach of an oral partnership agreement, where claimed damages exceeded $1 billion.

Another high-profile case involved an antitrust challenge to the National Football League by the firm's clients - about 20 top professional NFL football players.

The firm represented a major manufacturer in connection with its suit for breach of contract and fraud against a company that failed to properly implement its multi-million dollar enterprise resource planning system to coordinate inventories, plants, manufacturing processes and billings.

The firm filed suit against a Pasadena shopping mall, successfully arguing that the mall's deficient security allowed two criminals to rape and murder the wife of its client. The jury returned a $3.6 million verdict in favor of the husband and against the mall.

In a product liability case, the firm won a $7 million jury verdict for a man left paralyzed in connection with the use of a Sears extension ladder sold without adequate safety warnings.

In a breach of oral contract to transfer an equity interest to a corporate executive, Howarth & Smith obtained a $9 million jury verdict for the executive.

The firm represented 12 California cities and municipalities in an action against other municipalities for recovery of $30 million lost in a fraudulent investment scheme.

In 2008, Howarth & Smith secured a $28 million judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the CNN Middle-East bureau chief, who in 1984 was kidnapped and held hostage for nearly a year in Beirut, and his wife.

The firm also in 2008 arbitrated a case on behalf of a leading employment services company involving claims of trade secrets and unlawful competition.

The firm currently represents a group of shareholders in a multi-national internet infrastructure company, including a former Hawai’i governor and a prominent Honolulu businessman, who were unlawfully frozen out of a three way merger by the preferred shareholders. Plaintiffs are seeking $700 million in damages.

Howarth & Smith is representing a small, independent inventor, who holds numerous cutting edge internet patents, against a major law firm which filed an unsuccessful petition to reexamine plaintiff’s patents with the United State Patent Office, and thus delayed his licensing program.

The firm just concluded a major federal class action as trial counsel in a shareholders suit for violations of the securities laws.

Howarth & Smith recently handled an employee class action on behalf of the class in a wage and hour suit against a major national employer who misclassified employees as independent contractors.

Howarth & Smith is lead counsel in a derivative action brought by a major shareholder against the Board of Directors and executives for corporate waste and mismanagement of a billion dollar financial institution.

On the defense side, the firm has represented many corporations in multimillion dollar suits, including antitrust cases (against vitamin, catfish, cement and glass container manufacturers), NBA and NFL stars, high net worth individuals, the Vatican Library (as custodian of Vatican artwork) and many prominent law firms.

In 2007, the firm served as trial counsel in the defense of a patent infringement case involving switching jacks for H.D. television, obtaining a unanimous jury verdict for the defense in the Federal District Court for Minnesota after a three week trial, and then successfully defended the result in the Federal Circuit.

Howarth & Smith represents a large rehabilitation and health care company in a criminal case brought by the Attorney General of Massachusetts where the corporation is charged with manslaughter.

In addition to representing individuals and corporate entities, as a part of its practice, Howarth & Smith has handled a number of class action and mass disaster cases involving a variety of issues, both on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants.

For example, Howarth & Smith brought a price fixing class action on behalf of all purchasers of eggs in Southern California. It was also involved in the silicone breast implant product liability litigation and represents claimants in the Vioxx litigation

Howarth & Smith has also represented defendants in class actions involving personal injuries, such as Jenkins et al. v. Raymark, et al.,(federal district court, Marshall Division in Eastern Texas); and in alleged consumer fraud actions, such as Coyle, et al. v. Westec Security, et al. (Superior Court Los Angeles), where class certification was defeated.

Howarth & Smith is led by founding partners, Don Howarth and Suzelle M. Smith, and partner Darcy Harris. The partners are supported by associates and experienced legal assistants.

Howarth & Smith's unique accomplishments stem from its partners' recognized ability to combine strategic thinking, high-quality legal analysis and persuasive courtroom presence. What further distinguishes these lawyers is their ability to distill complex legal issues, technicalities and jargon into understandable and compelling arguments, enabling juries to grasp relevant issues and understand the client's position. Howarth & Smith's flair for crisp, concise communication – coupled with its analytical skills and mastery of trial strategy - are a potent combination that makes the firm a powerful force in the nation's courtrooms.

Howarth & Smith has demonstrated that creative attorneys with the right approach and the right set of skills can provide what is necessary to succeed in today's legal arena: individualized trial and appellate advocacy so difficult to find in large firms with a generic approach.
 

Disclaimer