Attorney RecordLos Angeles County
Patricia L Glaser · California Lawyer
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.
Patricia L Glaser is on California’s State Bar roll, #55668, admitted in 1973; license status: active as of 22 July 2026. The address of record is in Los Angeles, Los Angeles County. 11 practice areas are listed in the registry, shown on this page. 32 case appearances are listed on this profile. Registry record updated 22 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 business law 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 22 October 2026. Contact information on this page comes from the public record and is shown free, the registry never paywalls it.
2 findings about you await your confirmation. Claim your profile to review and add the ones that are yours →
The record
| State Bar number | #55668 |
|---|---|
| License status | Active |
| Admitted | 1973 |
| Law school | Rutgers Univ |
| Firm | Glaser Weil et al LLP |
| Location | Los Angeles, Los Angeles 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Melamed v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center | Counsel for the respondent | 8 Cal. App. 5th 1271 | California Court of Appeal | 27 February 2017 |
| Jason People v. Danielle S. | Counsel for the respondent | 226 Cal. App. 4th 167 | California Court of Appeal | 14 May 2014 |
| Toho-Towa Co. v. Morgan Creek Productions, Inc. | Counsel for the appellant | 217 Cal. App. 4th 1096 | California Court of Appeal | 11 July 2013 |
| Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California | Counsel for the appellant | 55 Cal. 4th 747 | California Supreme Court | 26 November 2012 |
| Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc. | Counsel for the appellant | 648 F.3d 779 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 19 July 2011 |
| Sea Prestigio, LLC v. M/Y Triton | Counsel for the plaintiff | 787 F. Supp. 2d 1116 | U.S. District Court, Southern District of California | 11 April 2011 |
| Couch v. Telescope Inc. | Counsel for the appellant | 611 F.3d 629 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 8 July 2010 |
| Christine Wolf v. Loring Ward International, Ltd | Counsel for the respondent | 374 F. App'x 751 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 30 March 2010 |
| Labor/Community Strategy Center v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority | Counsel for the respondent | 564 F.3d 1115 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 5 May 2009 |
| Labor/Community Strategy Center v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority | Counsel for the respondent | 9 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5484 | California Supreme Court | 5 May 2009 |
| Securities & Exchange Commission v. Yuen | Counsel for the defendant | 272 F. App'x 615 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 1 April 2008 |
| 02 DEVELOPMENT, LLC v. 607 South Park, LLC | Counsel for the respondent | 159 Cal. App. 4th 609 | California Court of Appeal | 30 January 2008 |
| Burkle v. Burkle | Counsel for the respondent | 144 Cal. App. 4th 387 | California Court of Appeal | 30 October 2006 |
| Burkle v. Burkle | Counsel for the respondent | 141 Cal. App. 4th 1029 | California Court of Appeal | 28 July 2006 |
| Blue v. City of Los Angeles | Counsel for the respondent | 137 Cal. App. 4th 1131 | California Court of Appeal | 1 March 2006 |
| Burkle v. Burkle | Counsel for the appellant | 135 Cal. App. 4th 1045 | California Court of Appeal | 1 February 2006 |
| Alch v. Superior Court | Counsel for the respondent | 122 Cal. App. 4th 339 | California Court of Appeal | 14 September 2004 |
| Televisa S.A. De C.V. v. DTVLA WC Inc. | Counsel for the appellant | 374 F.3d 1384 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 7 July 2004 |
| Securities & Exchange Commission v. Yuen | Counsel for the defendant | 221 F.R.D. 631 | U.S. District Court, Central District of California | 10 June 2004 |
| Televisa S.A. De C v. v. DTVLA WC Inc. | Counsel for the appellant | 366 F.3d 981 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 6 May 2004 |
| Viner v. Sweet | Counsel for the respondent | 117 Cal. App. 4th 1218 | California Court of Appeal | 23 April 2004 |
| Viner v. Sweet | Counsel for the respondent | 30 Cal. 4th 1232 | California Supreme Court | 23 June 2003 |
| City of Hope v. Bryan Cave | Counsel for the appellant | 102 Cal. App. 4th 1356 | California Court of Appeal | 13 November 2002 |
| La Costa Beach Homeowners' Ass'n v. California Coastal Commission | Counsel for the respondent | 101 Cal. App. 4th 804 | California Court of Appeal | 29 August 2002 |
| Kajima Engineering & Construction, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles | Counsel for the appellant | 95 Cal. App. 4th 921 | California Court of Appeal | 30 January 2002 |
| Styne v. Stevens | Counsel for the respondent | 26 Cal. 4th 42 | California Supreme Court | 12 July 2001 |
| Marsu, B v. Plaintiff-Counter Defendant v. The Walt Disney Company, Defendant-Counter Claimant | Counsel for the respondent | 185 F.3d 932 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 28 July 1999 |
| Marsu, B v. Plaintiff-Counter Defendant v. The Walt Disney Company, Defendant-Counter Claimant | Counsel for the respondent | 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5966 | California Supreme Court | 28 July 1999 |
| Jackson v. Paramount Pictures Corp. | Counsel for the respondent | 68 Cal. App. 4th 10 | California Court of Appeal | 28 October 1998 |
| Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Miramax Films Corp. | Counsel for the plaintiff | 11 F. Supp. 2d 1179 | U.S. District Court, Central District of California | 29 May 1998 |
| In Re MDC Holdings Securities Litigation | Counsel for the defendant | 754 F. Supp. 785 | U.S. District Court, Southern District of California | 12 December 1990 |
| Arthur Cohn, and Michael Arthur Film Productions, a Company Doing Business Under the Laws of Liechtenstein v. Richard L. Rosenfeld | Counsel for the respondent | 733 F.2d 625 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 25 April 1984 |
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, Band 2, Litigation: General Commercial (California). As published by Chambers and Partners; CAR does not rank attorneys. Firm at the time: Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro, LLP.
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, Band 1, Media & Entertainment: Litigation (California). As published by Chambers and Partners; CAR does not rank attorneys. Firm at the time: Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro, LLP.
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 Glaser Weil et al LLP.
A firm or employer website answers at glaserweil.com, the domain of the email address on the State Bar record.
The law school on the record is Rutgers University.
Admitted to the California Bar in 1973 · 53 years on the roll.
11 practice areas are on the record, listed on this page.
32 appearances as counsel in published opinions are on this record.
The address of record is in Los Angeles, in Los Angeles County, where matters are ordinarily heard at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, seated at Los Angeles.
Confirm Patricia L Glaser’s license status, bar number #55668, 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
Business Law in Los Angeles County: next on the roll
Los Angeles 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