Attorney RecordSan Francisco County
William Lathan Osterhoudt · 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.
William Lathan Osterhoudt is on California’s State Bar roll, #43021, admitted in 1969; license status: active as of 22 July 2026. The address of record is in San Francisco, San Francisco County. Practice areas listed in the registry: Appellate Law, Civil Rights and Criminal Defense. 30 case appearances are listed on this profile. Registry record updated 20 August 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 civil rights 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 20 August 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 | #43021 |
|---|---|
| License status | Active |
| Admitted | 1969 |
| Law school | UC Hastings COL |
| Firm | Law Office of William Osterhoudt |
| Location | San Francisco, San Francisco 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Luong | Counsel for the appellant | 471 F.3d 1107 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 25 December 2006 |
| Pickard v. United States | Counsel for the appellant | 94 F. App'x 495 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 24 March 2004 |
| Colleen Mary Rohan, Ex Rel. Oscar Gates v. Jeanne Woodford, Warden | Counsel for the appellant | 334 F.3d 803 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 25 June 2003 |
| Colleen Mary Rohan, Ex Rel. Oscar Gates v. Jeanne Woodford, Warden | Counsel for the appellant | 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5506 | California Supreme Court | 25 June 2003 |
| Garcia v. United States | Counsel for the petitioner | 915 F. Supp. 168 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 18 January 1996 |
| United States v. Jose Orlando Lopez, United States of America v. Jose Orlando Lopez | Counsel for the respondent | 4 F.3d 1455 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 22 September 1993 |
| United States v. Jose Orlando Lopez, (Two Cases) | Counsel for the respondent | 989 F.2d 1032 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 17 March 1993 |
| United States v. Jose Garcia | Counsel for the appellant | 988 F.2d 965 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 10 March 1993 |
| United States v. Jose Garcia | Counsel for the appellant | 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1764 | California Supreme Court | 10 March 1993 |
| In Re Order to Show Cause | Counsel for the respondent | 741 F. Supp. 1379 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 8 May 1990 |
| United States v. Richard Virgil Bibbero, Jr., United States of America v. James Paul Marshall | Counsel for the appellant | 749 F.2d 581 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 14 December 1984 |
| United States v. Felix Wayne Mitchell | Counsel for the appellant | 736 F.2d 1299 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 2 July 1984 |
| United States v. Mitchell | Counsel for the defendant | 572 F. Supp. 709 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 4 October 1983 |
| United States v. Dwight Conrad Jurgens | Counsel for the appellant | 626 F.2d 142 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 25 August 1980 |
| United States v. Margarito O. Romero, United States of America v. Hugo Frederic Forster | Counsel for the appellant | 585 F.2d 391 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 3 November 1978 |
| United States v. Christopher Russell Kilgus, United States of America v. Thomas Caso, United States of America v. Jeffrey Lee Beck | Counsel for the appellant | 571 F.2d 508 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 20 March 1978 |
| United States v. Nicholas Sand, United States of America v. Robert Timothy Scully | Counsel for the appellant | 541 F.2d 1370 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 8 October 1976 |
| United States v. Monroe | Counsel for the defendant | 408 F. Supp. 270 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 5 February 1976 |
| United States v. Bernard James See | Counsel for the appellant | 505 F.2d 845 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 24 March 1975 |
| United States v. Umberto Jose Chavez | Counsel for the respondent | 478 F.2d 512 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 28 February 1973 |
| United States v. Barbara Jean Fitch, and Robert Keelan Meisel, Jr., Grand Jury Witnesses, Charles Farrell Malone, Attempted Intervenor | Counsel for the appellant | 472 F.2d 548 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 5 January 1973 |
| In the Matter of James N. Chalmas, Also Known as Ted Sharliss, Witness Before Special Grand Jury. United States of America v. James N. Chalmas | Counsel for the appellant | 468 F.2d 234 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 10 October 1972 |
| United States v. Robert Stephen Basey | Counsel for the appellant | 468 F.2d 194 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 29 September 1972 |
| In the Matter of Sylvia Jane Brown, a Witness Before the United States Grand Jury v. United States | Counsel for the appellant | 465 F.2d 371 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 27 September 1972 |
| United States v. Linda L. Brown, United States of America v. Jerry Thompson Payne | Counsel for the respondent | 455 F.2d 1201 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 30 May 1972 |
| United States v. Lee Allen Novick | Counsel for the appellant | 450 F.2d 1111 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 12 November 1971 |
| Adolph Joseph Olinde and Ramon Zatrain Vasquez v. United States | Counsel for the appellant | 422 F.2d 1314 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 18 May 1970 |
| United States v. Zentgraf | Counsel for the plaintiff | 310 F. Supp. 268 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 5 March 1970 |
| United States v. Richard P. Maurice | Counsel for the appellant | 416 F.2d 234 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 17 September 1969 |
| United States v. Randall Theodore Milliken | Counsel for the appellant | 416 F.2d 676 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 16 September 1969 |
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.
On the official record
The employer on the official record is Law Office of William Osterhoudt.
The law school on the record is UC Hastings College of the Law.
Admitted to the California Bar in 1969 · 57 years on the roll.
Practice areas on the record: Appellate Law, Civil Rights and Criminal Defense.
30 appearances as counsel in published opinions are on this record.
The address of record is in San Francisco, in San Francisco County, where matters are ordinarily heard at the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, seated at San Francisco.
Confirm William Lathan Osterhoudt’s license status, bar number #43021, 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
Civil Rights in San Francisco County: next on the roll
San Francisco 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