In his two decades of litigating cases, Ezra Siegel has taken more than 15 cases to verdict in both state and federal courts. He has argued before the California Court of appeal. His experience includes defending public agencies against a a variety of tort claims, including wrongful death, serious brain injury, and dangerous condition cases. He has successfully defended law enforcement against numerous constitutional claims involving the First, Four, Fifth, and Eight Amendments, as well as the Bane Act, and a suicide-by-cop case.
Ezra passionately fights for his clients, which is exemplified by his successful trial record. His approach involves thoroughly investigating cases that will either lead to a favorable settlement or a victory either by motion or at trial.
Work for Clients
While serving as a Deputy Attorney General for the State of California, Ezra defended various State Agencies and public employees, including the California Highway Patrol, Board of Trustees for the California State University, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Mental Health, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Ezra also represented the State of California when it was sued over its eviction moratorium, where plaintiffs alleged a Fifth Amendment taking. Exemplifying a career in public service, Ezra began his legal career representing children in their dependency hearings.
Honors & Awards
Loyola Law School Dean Scholar and selected for Hobbes Trial Advocacy Clinic
Professional and Community Affiliations
Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association
- Lemly v. Department of Parks and Recretation, et al. In a publicized case in June of 2021, Ezra defended a state park ranger in the United States District Court after he arrested and handcuffed a man who refused to stop an event to feed the homeless at Doheny State Beach. The plaintiff alleged excessive force, a Bane Act violation, and a First Amendment claim. Judge David O. Carter granted the defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the First Amendment claim, and the jury gave a complete defense verdict on the remaining claims.