Bruce J. Lurie

Of Counsel
Phone:(310) 274-8700
Fax:(310) 274-2798

Education and Affiliations

Education & Certification

  • NYU Law School, 1970 – Root-Tilden-Kern Scholar
  • University of Illinois, B.S. Accounting, 1967
  • Certified Public Accountant, Illinois 1967

Bar & Court Admissions

  • California
  • Missouri
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. District Court (Southern, Central and Northern Districts, CA; Western District, MO)
  • U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Cir.)

Honors & Awards 

Martindale AV Rating

Professional Association

  • Association of Business Trial Lawyers

Bruce J. Lurie: Professional Profile

Bruce J. Lurie is a very experienced litigation attorney and business lawyer who approaches dispute resolution from a business perspective.  He is well-recognized for his unique and creative ability to resolve complicated and multi-party commercial disputes.  Mr. Lurie founded the firm on January 1, 1983.

With over four decades of experience, Mr. Lurie combines vigorous and assertive representation of clients with well-developed methods of negotiating favorable settlements in complex business litigation and pre-litigation controversies.  As one of the few CPA/trial attorneys in California, Mr. Lurie is particularly adept at considering the financial effects of alternative strategies and handling financial and accounting matters that arise in litigation.  He has represented clients nationwide and has appeared before many courts, tribunals, administrative agencies and commissions.

Mr. Lurie has tried numerous cases and has had extensive experience in real estate litigation, class actions, securities litigation, public utilities disputes, administrative hearings, arbitrations, entertainment litigation, condemnation, insurance, trade name disputes, receiverships, injunctive relief, pre-judgment and post-judgment remedies, appeals, disputes involving franchise and distribution agreements, banking litigation, debtor-creditor disputes, workouts and insolvency issues, construction disputes, wrongful termination, products liability and antitrust claims.

Among his many successful cases, Mr. Lurie recently achieved a favorable decision after convincing the court that California’s anti-deficiency statutes precluded his client from liability for a claim on a guaranty of a $24 million loan on a commercial property in Beverly Hills’ “Golden Triangle.”  In several major business disputes throughout his career, through persistent negotiations with opposing counsel, Mr. Lurie persuaded them that their claims had no merit, and to drop their claims without any payment.

Mr. Lurie has been involved in numerous contentious partnership, corporate and business entity disputes.  In one such matter, a partner in a well-known jean manufacturing company retained Mr. Lurie after five major law firms were unable to resolve a bitter, ongoing dispute between the company’s partners.  Mr. Lurie successfully negotiated a settlement between the partners by getting them to work out all issues except for one controversy, which was arbitrated.  Mr. Lurie won the arbitration.

Since experiencing a devastating surfing accident in 2006, Mr. Lurie has been very active in assisting and advising people with spinal cord injuries and other disabilities.  He counsels others on overcoming personal obstacles and on wellness and healthy lifestyles.  Mr. Lurie is a former instructor at the UCLA Attorney Assistant Training Program and has provided pro bono litigation services.

Bruce Lurie's Results by Practice Area

Business Litigation

In an adversary proceeding in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, preserved real estate owner’s breach of contract claim against a lender and the lender’s assignee, despite defendants’ multiple motions to dismiss.

Successfully defended Deutsche Bank, AG against claims of fraud, negligent representation, and omission regarding investments. Plaintiffs sought $363 million in compensatory and punitive damages. Judge granted Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss based on arguments that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for fraud or negligent misrepresentation, and the 12-year old claims had passed the applicable statute of limitations.

Professional & Fiduciary Liability

Successfully prosecuted legal malpractice claims against prominent Honolulu firm regarding a failed condominium project.  Through careful depositions of law firm members, established that the law firm had cancelled all condominium sales contracts without developer client’s authorization; had paid itself, without authorization, from funds in client trust accounts; and, subsequently defended client in high stakes litigation brought by class of dissatisfied condominium purchasers, without advising client of conflict.  Persisted in settlement discussions and mediation until settlement was reached, weeks before trial.

Real Estate Litigation

Successfully defended a real estate developer in a $16 million lawsuit alleging he had publicized a city’s intentions to take plaintiff’s property through eminent domain, thereby reducing the property’s value and interfering with the plaintiff’s business operated on the property. 

After convincing the court to conduct a one-day bench trial on the defense of “sham guaranty,” obtained a ruling by the court that the client was not liable to pay on a guaranty of a $24 million loan on a commercial property in Beverly Hills’ “Golden Triangle” because the guaranty was subject to California’s anti-deficiency statutes.  

Successfully defended shopping center developer against former secured lender’s claim for $1.5 million “exit” fee after client refinanced loan. Lender had failed to demand the exit fee at the time the loan was refinanced and deed of trust re-conveyed. Notwithstanding lender’s claim of inadvertent error, persuaded court that “one-action” rule governed and that lender had waived its security interest and therefore waived its claim for further monies. Defeated lender’s claims on quickly set motion for summary judgment based on anti-deficiency law defenses. Collected entire award of fees, including a $50,000 “bonus” over actual attorneys’ fees incurred based on “reasonable fee” argument.

Skip to content