Attorney RecordLitigation · San Mateo County
Joseph Winters Cotchett Jr. · Litigation Attorney
Can’t reach them, or not sure who to call? Submit your case for review · attorneys who practice in your area read it and may send you terms. Free; your details stay masked until you choose.
Joseph Winters Cotchett Jr. is on California’s State Bar roll, #36324, admitted in 1965; license status: active as of 22 July 2026. The address of record is in Burlingame, San Mateo County. Practice areas listed in the registry: Litigation. This profile lists 4 third-party recognitions published by Chambers and Partners, the most recent in Chambers USA 2026. Registry record updated 7 October 2026; license information comes from the State Bar.
This profile has not yet been claimed. Verify current license status at the State Bar before retaining counsel; the choice is always yours.
Have a litigation matter? Submit your case for review.
Open a free case file, choose how attorneys may contact you, and review any terms they send. You decide whom to contact and whether to proceed.
In the last 30 days attorneys have read 11 filed matters on the registry.
Submit your case for reviewLegal information, not legal advice
Registry verification
Verified against official State Bar of California records · record last updated 7 October 2026. Contact information on this page comes from the public record and is shown free, the registry never paywalls it.
10+ published court opinions may name you. Claim your profile to review and add the ones that are yours →
The record
| State Bar number | #36324 |
|---|---|
| License status | Active |
| Admitted | 1965 |
| Law school | UC Hastings COL |
| Firm | Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP |
| Location | Burlingame, San Mateo County |
| Registry identity | Official State Bar record |
Practice areas
Practice areas are self-reported to the State Bar or added by the attorney; listing one is not a State Bar certification.
Understand your options
Free California worksheets to organize the facts before speaking with an attorney.
Verified profiles & presence
Professional identity links come from public sources or this attorney. Review-site ratings belong to their named source and may cover a firm or office. CAR does not combine them into an attorney rating.
Cases of record
From published opinions naming this attorney as counsel. The attorney has not yet confirmed these records.
| Case | Appeared for | Citation | Court | Decided |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Police Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. Page | Counsel for the respondent | 22 Cal. App. 5th 336 | California Court of Appeal | 16 April 2018 |
| Surfrider Found. v. Martins Beach 1, LLC | Counsel for the respondent | 14 Cal. App. 5th 238 | California Court of Appeal | 9 August 2017 |
| Donald Wortman v. Amy Yang | Counsel for the plaintiff | 701 F. App'x 554 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 26 June 2017 |
| Monster, LLC v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty. | Counsel for the petitioner | 12 Cal. App. 5th 1214 | California Court of Appeal | 21 June 2017 |
| Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa Inc. | Counsel for the respondent | 856 F.3d 1274 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 18 May 2017 |
| City of San Jose v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball | Counsel for the appellant | 776 F.3d 686 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 15 January 2015 |
| Lotus v. Department of Transportation | Counsel for the appellant | 223 Cal. App. 4th 645 | California Court of Appeal | 30 January 2014 |
| Asahi Kasei Pharma Corp. v. Actelion Ltd. | Counsel for the appellant | 222 Cal. App. 4th 945 | California Court of Appeal | 18 December 2013 |
| Bair v. California State Department of Transportation | Counsel for the plaintiff | 867 F. Supp. 2d 1058 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 4 April 2012 |
| Ellen Stoody-Broser v. Bank of America, N.A. | Counsel for the appellant | 442 F. App'x 247 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 6 June 2011 |
| Epstein v. Superior Court | Counsel for the petitioner | 193 Cal. App. 4th 1405 | California Court of Appeal | 30 March 2011 |
| Abat v. Chase Bank USA, N.A. | Counsel for the plaintiff | 738 F. Supp. 2d 1093 | U.S. District Court, Central District of California | 14 September 2010 |
| PSM Holding Corp. v. National Farm Financial Corp. | Counsel for the defendant | 743 F. Supp. 2d 1136 | U.S. District Court, Central District of California | 26 July 2010 |
| Steering Committee v. Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. | Counsel for the respondent | 386 F. App'x 584 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 25 June 2010 |
| In Re Webkinz Antitrust Litigation | Counsel for the plaintiff | 695 F. Supp. 2d 987 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 17 February 2010 |
| Matthew Roberts v. Foxhollow Technologies, Inc. | Counsel for the appellant | 359 F. App'x 802 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 4 December 2009 |
| PSM Holding Corp. v. National Farm Financial Corp. | Counsel for the appellant | 339 F. App'x 693 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 18 June 2009 |
| PSM Holding Corp. v. National Farm Financial Corp. | Counsel for the appellant | 339 F. App'x 693 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 18 June 2009 |
| In Re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation | Counsel for the plaintiff | 643 F. Supp. 2d 1133 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 31 March 2009 |
| Scarff v. Intuit, Inc. | Counsel for the appellant | 318 F. App'x 483 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 24 November 2008 |
| Scarff v. Intuit, Inc. | Counsel for the appellant | 318 F. App'x 483 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 24 November 2008 |
| RN Solution, Inc. v. Catholic Healthcare West | Counsel for the respondent | 165 Cal. App. 4th 1511 | California Court of Appeal | 15 August 2008 |
| Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court | Counsel for the petitioner | 165 Cal. App. 4th 672 | California Court of Appeal | 30 July 2008 |
| Simpson v. Homestore.Com, Inc. | Counsel for the appellant | 519 F.3d 1041 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 26 March 2008 |
| Winery v. WD Energy Services, Inc. | Counsel for the respondent | 270 F. App'x 629 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 19 March 2008 |
| E. & J. GALLO WINERY v. EnCana Corp. | Counsel for the respondent | 503 F.3d 1027 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 19 September 2007 |
| California State Teachers Retirement v. Aol Time Warner | Counsel for the appellant | 452 F.3d 1040 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 30 June 2006 |
| E. & J. Gallo Winery v. EnCana Energy Services, Inc. | Counsel for the plaintiff | 388 F. Supp. 2d 1148 | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California | 6 July 2005 |
| American Financial Services Ass'n v. City of Oakland | Counsel for the appellant | 34 Cal. 4th 1239 | California Supreme Court | 31 January 2005 |
| In Re Homestore. Com, Inc. Securities Litigation | Counsel for the plaintiff | 347 F. Supp. 2d 814 | U.S. District Court, Central District of California | 29 October 2004 |
| In Re HOMESTORE.COM, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION | Counsel for the plaintiff | 347 F. Supp. 2d 811 | U.S. District Court, Central District of California | 27 May 2004 |
| In Re HOMESTORE.COM, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION | Counsel for the plaintiff | 347 F. Supp. 2d 769 | U.S. District Court, Central District of California | 11 May 2004 |
| In Re HOMESTORE.COM, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION | Counsel for the plaintiff | 347 F. Supp. 2d 790 | U.S. District Court, Central District of California | 11 May 2004 |
| Deutsch v. Turner Corp. | Counsel for the appellant | 317 F.3d 1005 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 21 January 2003 |
| Suzuki Motor Corporation and American Suzuki Motor Corporation v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., a Non-Profit New York Corporation | Counsel for the respondent | 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5641 | California Supreme Court | 25 June 2002 |
| Suzuki Motor Corporation and American Suzuki Motor Corporation v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., a Non-Profit New York Corporation | Counsel for the respondent | 292 F.3d 1192 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 25 June 2002 |
| Sheppard v. Cable News Network, Inc. | Counsel for the plaintiff | 106 F. Supp. 2d 1000 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 31 July 2000 |
| Burgert v. Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust | Counsel for the appellant | 200 F.3d 661 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 26 January 2000 |
| Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. | Counsel for the defendant | 66 F. Supp. 2d 1117 | U.S. District Court, Central District of California | 20 September 1999 |
| 7-Up Bottling Co. of Jasper Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. | Counsel for the appellant | 191 F.3d 1090 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 1 September 1999 |
| In re Beer Distribution Antitrust Litigation | Counsel for the plaintiff | 188 F.R.D. 549 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 10 November 1998 |
| Hook v. Lockheed Martin Corp. | Counsel for the plaintiff | 42 F. Supp. 2d 976 | U.S. District Court, Central District of California | 2 April 1998 |
| County of Alameda v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. | Counsel for the appellant | 51 Cal. App. 4th 1691 | California Court of Appeal | 14 January 1997 |
| Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach | Counsel for the appellant | 102 F.3d 1524 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 20 December 1996 |
| Abelson v. National Union Fire Insurance | Counsel for the appellant | 28 Cal. App. 4th 776 | California Court of Appeal | 26 September 1994 |
| McLaughlin v. National Union Fire Insurance | Counsel for the respondent | 23 Cal. App. 4th 1132 | California Court of Appeal | 25 March 1994 |
| Chatton v. National Union Fire Insurance | Counsel for the respondent | 10 Cal. App. 4th 846 | California Court of Appeal | 28 October 1992 |
| Helfand v. Nationall Union Fire Insurance | Counsel for the respondent | 10 Cal. App. 4th 869 | California Court of Appeal | 28 October 1992 |
| Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. | Counsel for the respondent | 3 Cal. 4th 370 | California Supreme Court | 27 August 1992 |
| Dickinson v. Duck (In Re Borelli) | Counsel for the appellant | 132 B.R. 648 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 4 October 1991 |
Appearances in published opinions, drawn from public court records. Cases of record are matters of public record and are not a representation of results; past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Legal information, not legal advice.
Each case name opens the published opinion it comes from. Is a case not this attorney’s? The attorney can claim this profile and mark it as not theirs, which removes it from this page; anyone can report an error through Help & Support.
Third-party recognitions
Third-party recognitions, as published by their issuers. CAR does not rank attorneys. How to read a Chambers recognition.
Chambers USA 2026, Senior Statespeople, Antitrust: Mainly Plaintiff (California). As published by Chambers and Partners; CAR does not rank attorneys. Firm at the time: Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.
Published source · Methodology
Published by Chambers and Partners and shown under licence. Not yet confirmed by the attorney. Last checked 3 October 2026.
Chambers USA 2026, Senior Statespeople, Antitrust: Plaintiff (USA - Nationwide). As published by Chambers and Partners; CAR does not rank attorneys. Firm at the time: Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.
Published source · Methodology
Published by Chambers and Partners and shown under licence. Not yet confirmed by the attorney. Last checked 3 October 2026.
Chambers USA 2026, Senior Statespeople, Litigation: Mainly Plaintiffs (California). As published by Chambers and Partners; CAR does not rank attorneys. Firm at the time: Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.
Published source · Methodology
Published by Chambers and Partners and shown under licence. Not yet confirmed by the attorney. Last checked 3 October 2026.
Chambers USA 2026, Senior Statespeople, Litigation: Securities Mainly Plaintiffs (California). As published by Chambers and Partners; CAR does not rank attorneys. Firm at the time: Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.
Published source · Methodology
Published by Chambers and Partners and shown under licence. Not yet confirmed by the attorney. Last checked 3 October 2026.
Are you this attorney? Claim this record to confirm, correct or remove a recognition →
Issuers set their own criteria and may sell marketing products to the firms they recognize. A recognition is not a guarantee of any result. The California Attorney Registry is not affiliated with Chambers and Partners.
On the official record
The employer on the official record is Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP.
A firm or employer website answers at cpmlegal.com, the domain of the email address on the State Bar record.
The law school on the record is UC Hastings College of the Law.
Admitted to the California Bar in 1965 · 61 years on the roll.
Practice areas on the record: Litigation.
50 appearances as counsel in published opinions are on this record.
The address of record is in Burlingame, in San Mateo County, where matters are ordinarily heard at the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, seated at Redwood City.
Confirm Joseph Winters Cotchett Jr.’s license status, bar number #36324, and official disciplinary or administrative history directly with the State Bar of California at apps.calbar.ca.gov before retaining counsel. This profile does not reproduce the complete official history; missing information does not mean no discipline. This page indexes public-record data and identifies verified claims; it does not rate attorney quality or predict results.
Legal information, not legal advice.
On the record nearby
Litigation in San Mateo County: next on the roll
San Mateo County: next on the roll
Listed alphabetically by last name, continuing from this record. Not a recommendation.
For Attorneys
Your profile is already on the roll. Make it yours.
Every California attorney is indexed here from the official State Bar roll, including you. Verify your identity in minutes, present your practice the way you want clients to see it, and unlock the Referral Exchange · send and receive matters with verified attorneys, fees divided 100% between counsel under CRPC 1.5.1.
Claim My ProfileFree to claim · referrals free at every level · identity verified against the State Bar record
Read the record. Then decide.
Describe your matter once, review the verified records, and place the call; the choice is always yours.
Find Your Counsel279,000+ attorney records · 58 counties · Official State Bar records