Download vCard

John D. Hourihan

Of Counsel

John D. Hourihan, Of Counsel to the firm, has litigated in a variety of areas, including catastrophic personal injury, wrongful death, toxic torts, breach of employment contract, employer harassment, improper campus police conduct, and defamation.

He was elected to the American Board of Trial Advocates, where he holds the rank of Advocate, having tried more than 50 cases to jury verdict. He has also been elected to the American Inns of Court, with the rank of Master of the Bench.  For over 20 years he has been given the highest rating (AV Pre-eminent) from Martindale-Hubbell.  He has been recognized as one of the Top 100 Civil Defense Attorneys in Northern California by America’s Top 100, LLC.

He has published articles, chiefly on trial advocacy, in professional magazines such as California Litigation, Defense Comment and Voir Dire (the national publication of the American Board of Trial Advocates).

Before coming to the firm, he was an attorney with a major insurance company, where he was a member of their elite trial team, stepping in to oversee, evaluate for settlement and try high risk cases. Before that, he practiced with a San Francisco law firm, defending products liability and Title VII discrimination cases.

  • EDUCATION

    • B.A. English Literature, University of San Francisco, cum laude
    • J.D., University of San Francisco, (Comment Editor, Law Review; Quarter-Finalist in the Advanced Moot Court competition)

  • ADMISSIONS

    • State Bar of California
    • Federal District Court, Northern District of California

  • AFFILIATIONS

    • American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA)
    • American Inns of Court

  • SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

    • Panelist, “Civility Counts,” American Board of Trial Advocates CLE 2022, 2023
    • Instructor, Trial Advocacy Program, for in-house attorneys at a major insurance company, five times
    • Panelist on six occasions on various CLE topics, Judge Robert McGrath Chapter of the American Inns of Court

  • RECOGNITIONS

    • American Board of Trial Advocates, rank of Advocate
    • American Inns of Court, rank of Master of the Bench
    • Certificate of Appreciation from Contra Costa Superior Court for volunteer work as Discovery and Settlement Facilitator
    • Top 100 Civil Defense Attorneys of Northern California, America’s Top 100, LLC
    • AV Pre-eminent rating (highest rating), Martindale-Hubbell

  • REPRESENTATIVE CASES

    Capone v. Kelly – Contra Costa Superior Court 2022.  Allegations of permanent brain injury which required neck surgery following a vehicle accident with disputes over which party had entered the other’s lane.  Prior imaging was introduced to show that plaintiff had had similar brain imaging prior to the accident.  After 32 days of trial and multiple expert witnesses, defense verdict for client.

    Thurman v. PG&E, Zhang – Alameda Superior Court 2022.  Plaintiff claimed a toxic tort from gas leakage in her apartment, with permanent brain damage and other illnesses.  Mr. Hourihan represented the landlord.  He wrote and argued in limine Kelly motions to restrict controversial brain imaging and diagnoses based thereon.  Most of the motions were denied, though the court did not exclude any of the evidence proffered in support of the motions.  The case then settled shortly thereafter; it is believed in part because the plaintiff was able to see some of the evidence and advocacy that they would face in trial.

    Osana v. MoMo’s Restaurant – San Francisco Superior Court 2003.  A lack of security case wherein plaintiff stockbroker had a drinking glass smashed into his face during an assault at a San Francisco restaurant, shortly after the restaurant decided to dismiss most of its security for the night.  Plaintiff suffered permanent nerve injury to his face.  Defense verdict for client, the restaurant.

    Zivic v. Winterland Productions, et al. – San Francisco Superior Court 1999.  A highly compensated corporate officer recruiter sustained a permanent brain injury and was unable to work following an auto accident.  Plaintiff alleged that the client, an auto repair shop, caused the accident by their failure to properly service the brakes.  The defense introduced a gear shifting/braking model to demonstrate to the jury that the accident could not have occurred as co-defendant claimed.  Defense verdict for the client.

    Shore v. Gurnett – Contra Costa Superior Court 2002.  A locally publicized case in which client pled to the DUI that caused the death of a father with two young sons. The client was in prison and not able to appear at trial.  Despite the community hostility to the defendant, the jury’s verdict closely followed defense suggestions on how to evaluate the case and what monetary award to give.